Electronic apparatus and method for determining cause of mounting failure for component mounted on substrate

ABSTRACT

A method for determining a cause of a mounting failure for a component mounted on a substrate, which is performed by an electronic apparatus, comprises: receiving an inspection result of a mounting failure for each of a plurality of first components determined by inspecting a plurality of substrates of a first type; calculating a mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first components using the inspection result; determining a plurality of second components in which a mounting failure has occurred based on the mounting failure rate; and determining a cause of the mounting failure for each of the plurality of second components as at least one of a component mounting position setting error, a mounting condition setting error according to a component type and a defect of a nozzle, based on the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first components.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present disclosure relates to an electronic apparatus and method fordetermining a cause of a mounting failure for a component mounted on asubstrate.

BACKGROUND

Typically, in a surface mounter technology (SMT) process, a screenprinter prints solder pastes onto a substrate, and a mounter mountscomponents on the substrate on which the solder pastes are printed.

In addition, an automated optical inspection (AOI) device is used as asubstrate inspection device for inspecting a mounting state of acomponent mounted on a substrate. The substrate inspection device uses acaptured image of a substrate to inspect whether or not components arenormally mounted on the substrate without any deviation, distortion,tilting or the like. The substrate inspection device may use theinspection results to determine whether or not a mounting failure hasoccurred in each of the components.

Meanwhile, when the inspection results of the substrate inspectiondevice indicates that a mounting failure has occurred, the deviceoperators are required, in the subsequent component mounting process, toperform subsequent processes such as adjustment of control parameters ofa mounter that performs a component mounting process, replacement ofcomponents included in the mounter, and the like, so that the mountingfailure rate is reduced. In order to determine what subsequent processshould be performed to reduce the mounting failure rate, it is necessaryto determine the cause of the mounting failure for the components inwhich the mounting failure has occurred.

SUMMARY

Various embodiments of the present disclosure provide a method andelectronic apparatus of determining a cause of a mounting failure foreach of a plurality of components in which a mounting failure hasoccurred by using a mounting failure rate of each of a plurality ofcomponents mounted on a substrate.

Various embodiments of the present disclosure provide a method andelectronic apparatus of determining a cause of a mounting failure foreach of a plurality of components in which a mounting failure hasoccurred by using measurement information indicating a mounting state ofeach of a plurality of components mounted on a substrate.

Various embodiments of the present disclosure provide a method andelectronic apparatus of determining a cause of a mounting failure foreach of a plurality of components in which a mounting failure hasoccurred and transmitting control parameters to a mounter to solve thedetermined cause of a mounting failure.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, a method fordetermining a cause of a mounting failure for a component mounted on asubstrate, which is performed by an electronic apparatus, comprises:receiving an inspection result of a mounting failure for each of aplurality of first components determined by inspecting a plurality ofsubstrates of a first type on which the plurality of first componentsare mounted, a mounting position of each of the plurality of firstcomponents on the substrate of the first type being different to eachother; calculating a mounting failure rate of each of the plurality offirst components using the inspection result; determining a plurality ofsecond components in which a mounting failure has occurred among theplurality of first components based on the mounting failure rate of eachof the plurality of first components; and determining a cause of themounting failure for each of the plurality of second components as atleast one of a component mounting position setting error, a mountingcondition setting error according to a component type and a defect of anozzle included in a mounter, based on the mounting failure rate of eachof the plurality of first components.

In one embodiment, the calculating the mounting failure rate of each ofthe plurality of first components comprises: classifying the pluralityof substrates of the first type into at least one substrate of the firsttype in which the mounting failure for each of the plurality of firstcomponents has not occurred and at least one substrate of the first typein which a mounting failure for each of the plurality of firstcomponents has occurred by using the inspection result; and calculatingthe mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first componentsby using the number of the at least one substrate of the first type inwhich the mounting failure for each of the plurality of first componentshas not occurred and the number of the at least one substrate of thefirst type in which the mounting failure for each of the plurality offirst components has occurred.

In one embodiment, the determining the plurality of second components inwhich the mounting failure has occurred among the plurality of firstcomponents comprises: determining a plurality of components having amounting failure rate equal to or greater than a predetermined firstthreshold value among the mounting failure rates of the plurality offirst components; and determining the determined plurality of componentsas the plurality of second components.

In one embodiment, the determining the cause of the mounting failure foreach of the plurality of second components comprises: classifying theplurality of first components into a plurality of first component groupsaccording to a plurality of first component types, each of the pluralityof first components being classified as one of the plurality of firstcomponent types; determining a plurality of second component groupsincluding at least one of the plurality of second components among theplurality of first component groups; comparing mounting failure rates ofa plurality of third components included in each of the plurality ofsecond component groups with each other, based on the mounting failurerate of each of the plurality of first components; and determining acause of a mounting failure for a plurality of fourth componentsselected from among the plurality of second components based on thecomparison result as the component mounting position setting error.

In one embodiment, each of the plurality of fourth components is, in oneof the plurality of second component groups, a component having amounting failure rate determined as an outlier based on the comparisonresult.

In one embodiment, the determining the cause of the mounting failure foreach of the plurality of second components further comprises:calculating a mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstcomponent types, based on a mounting failure rate of each of a pluralityof fifth components except for the plurality of fourth components, amongthe plurality of first components; classifying the plurality of firstcomponent types into a plurality of first component type groupsaccording to a plurality of first nozzles used to mount the plurality offirst components; comparing the mounting failure rates of the pluralityof first component types included in each of the plurality of firstcomponent type groups; and determining a cause of a mounting failure fora plurality of sixth components, classified as a plurality of secondcomponent types selected based on the comparison result, as the mountingcondition setting error according to a component type.

In one embodiment, each of the plurality of second component types is,in one of the plurality of first component type groups, a component typehaving a mounting failure rate determined as an outlier based on thecomparison result.

In one embodiment, the determining the cause of the mounting failure foreach of the plurality of second components further comprises:calculating a mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstnozzles, based on a mounting failure rate of each of a plurality ofthird component types except for the plurality of second componenttypes, among the plurality of first component types; comparing themounting failure rates of the plurality of first nozzles; anddetermining, among the plurality of second components, a cause of amounting failure for a plurality of seventh components, mounted by usingat least one second nozzle selected based on the comparison result, asthe defect of the nozzle.

In one embodiment, the at least one second nozzle is, among theplurality of first nozzles, a nozzle having a mounting failure ratedetermined as an outlier based on the comparison result.

In one embodiment, the method further comprises: adjusting a mountingfailure rate of at least one third nozzle except for the at least onesecond nozzle among the plurality of first nozzles; adjusting a mountingfailure rate of at least one component type among the plurality of firstcomponent types based on at least one of the mounting failure rate ofthe at least one second nozzle and the adjusted mounting failure rate ofthe at least one third nozzle; adjusting a mounting failure rate of atleast one of the plurality of first components based on at least one ofa mounting failure rate of the at least one second nozzle, a mountingfailure rate of the adjusted at least one third nozzle and a mountingfailure rate of the adjusted at least one component type; andcalculating a contribution degree of the component mounting positionsetting error, the mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type and the defect of the nozzle included in the mounter tothe occurrence of the mounting failure for each of the plurality ofsecond components based on the mounting failure rate adjustment result.

In one embodiment, the method further comprises: generating anddisplaying a graph indicating a relationship between the plurality offirst components, the plurality of first component types and theplurality of first nozzles, the adjusted mounting failure rate of eachof the plurality of first components, the adjusted mounting failure rateof each of the plurality of first component types and the adjustedmounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first nozzles areindicated in the graph.

In one embodiment, the method further comprises: generating anddisplaying a graph in which the adjusted mounting failure rate of eachof the plurality of first components, the adjusted mounting failure rateof each of the plurality of first component types and the adjustedmounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first nozzles arearranged according to the magnitude of the adjusted mounting failurerates.

In one embodiment, the method further comprises: transmitting a controlsignal for changing a control parameter of a mounter used to mount theplurality of first components on the substrates of the first type or amessage indicating the necessity of replacement of a component includedin the mounter, to the mounter based on the cause of the mountingfailure for each of the plurality of second components.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, anelectronic apparatus for determining a cause of a mounting failure foreach of a plurality of components mounted on a substrate, comprises: oneor more memories; and a processor electrically connected to the one ormore memories, wherein the one or more memories are configured to storeinstructions for, when executed, enabling the processor to: receive aninspection result of a mounting failure for each of a plurality of firstcomponents determined by inspecting a plurality of substrates of a firsttype on which the plurality of first components are mounted, a mountingposition of each of the plurality of first components on the substrateof the first type being different to each other; calculate a mountingfailure rate of each of the plurality of first components using theinspection result; determine a plurality of second components in which amounting failure has occurred among the plurality of first componentsbased on the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstcomponents; and determine a cause of the mounting failure for each ofthe plurality of second components as at least one of a componentmounting position setting error, a mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type and a defect of a nozzle included in amounter, based on the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality offirst components.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, a method fordetermining a cause of a mounting failure for each of a plurality ofcomponents mounted on a substrate, which is performed by a substrateinspection device, comprises: receiving a first error value of each of aplurality of first components determined by inspecting a plurality ofsubstrates of a first type on which the plurality of first componentsare mounted, a mounting position of each of the plurality of firstcomponents on the substrate of the first type being different to eachother; dividing the first error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents into a second error value due to a component mountingposition setting error, a third error value due to a mounting conditionsetting error according to a component type and a fourth error value dueto a defect of a nozzle included in a mounter; determining a pluralityof second components in which a mounting failure has occurred among theplurality of first components based on the second error value, the thirderror value and the fourth error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents; and determining a cause of the mounting failure for each ofthe plurality of second components as at least one of the componentmounting position setting error, the mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type and the defect of the nozzle included inthe mounter, based on the second error value, the third error value andthe fourth error value of each of the plurality of second components.

In one embodiment, the dividing the first error value of each of theplurality of first components comprises: classifying the plurality offirst components into a plurality of first component groups according toa plurality of first component types, each of the plurality of firstcomponents being classified as one of the plurality of first componenttypes; comparing first error values of a plurality of third componentsincluded in each of the plurality of first component groups, based onthe first error value of each of the plurality of first components;selecting a plurality of fourth components from among the plurality offirst components based on the comparison result; calculating an averageerror value of each of the plurality of first component groups, based onfirst error values of a plurality of fifth components except for theplurality of fourth components, among the plurality of first components;and calculating the second error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents due to the component mounting position setting error, basedon the first error value of each of the plurality of first componentsand the average error value of each of the plurality of first componentgroups.

In one embodiment, the dividing the first error value of each of theplurality of first components further comprises: calculating an errorvalue of each of the plurality of first component types based on theaverage error value of each of the plurality of first component groups;classifying the plurality of first component types into a plurality offirst component type groups according to a plurality of first nozzlesused to mount the plurality of first components; comparing error valuesof a plurality of second component types included in each of theplurality of first component type groups, based on the error value ofeach of the plurality of first component types; selecting a plurality ofthird component types from among the plurality of first component typesbased on the comparison result; calculating an average error value ofeach of the plurality of first component type groups, based on errorvalues of a plurality of fourth component types except for the pluralityof third component types, among the plurality of first component types;and calculating the third error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents due to the mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type, based on the error value of each of the plurality offirst component types and the average error value of each of theplurality of first component type groups.

In one embodiment, the dividing the first error value of each of theplurality of first components further comprises: calculating an errorvalue of each of the plurality of first nozzles based on the averageerror value of each of the plurality of first component type groups;calculating the fourth error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents due to the defect of the nozzle, based on the error value ofeach of the plurality of first nozzles; and dividing the first errorvalue of each of the plurality of first components into the second errorvalue, the third error value and the fourth error value of each of theplurality of first components.

In one embodiment, the determining the plurality of second components inwhich the mounting failure has occurred among the plurality of firstcomponents comprises: determining a plurality of components in which atleast one of the second error value, the third error value and thefourth error value of each of the plurality of first components is outof a predetermined first range; and determining the determined pluralityof components as the plurality of second components.

In one embodiment, the determining the cause of the mounting failure foreach of the plurality of second components comprises: determiningwhether each of the second error value, the third error value and thefourth error value of each of the plurality of second components fallswithin a predetermined second range; and determining the cause of themounting failure for each of the plurality of second components as atleast one of the component mounting position setting error, the mountingcondition setting error according to a component type and the detect ofthe nozzle based on the determination result.

The electronic apparatus according to various embodiments of the presentdisclosure can determine a cause of a mounting failure for each of aplurality of components in which a mounting failure has occurred byusing a mounting failure rate of each of a plurality of componentsmounted on a substrate or measurement information indicating a mountingstate of each of a plurality of components. This makes it possible toefficiently and accurately determine what subsequent process should beperformed to reduce the mounting failure rate in the subsequentcomponent mounting process.

Furthermore, the electronic apparatus displays the analysis result offailure of mounter components related to the component mounting throughthe inspection of the mounted components in the SMT process, so that theuser can easily recognize the failure.

In addition, the electronic apparatus can determine the cause of themounting failure for the components in which a mounting failure hasoccurred. Based on this determination, the electronic apparatus cansend, to a mounter for performing a component mounting process, anotification message for a subsequent follow-up action such asreplacement of a component included in the mounter, or can adjustcontrol parameters, so that the mounting failure rate is reduced.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates an SMT process line according to various embodimentsof the present disclosure.

FIG. 2 illustrates a first substrate inspection device according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an electronic apparatus according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause of amounting failure for each of a plurality of components mounted on asubstrate according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 5 illustrates pads, solder pastes and components on a substrateaccording to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 6 is a table illustrating the mounting failure rates of components,component types and nozzles according to various embodiments of thepresent disclosure.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause of amounting failure for a component as a component mounting positionsetting error according to various embodiments of the presentdisclosure.

FIG. 8 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause of amounting failure for a component as a mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type according to various embodiments of thepresent disclosure.

FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause of amounting failure for a component as a nozzle defect according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 10 is a flowchart illustrating a method for calculating acontribution degree to occurrence of a mounting failure according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 11 is a table illustrating the adjusted mounting failure rates ofcomponents, component types and nozzles according to various embodimentsof the present disclosure.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause ofa mounting failure for each of a plurality of components mounted on asubstrate according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIGS. 13A and 13B are tables illustrating first to fourth error valuesof each of a plurality of first components according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating a method for calculating a seconderror value of each of a plurality of first components according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 15 is a flowchart illustrating a method for calculating a thirderror value of each of a plurality of first components according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart illustrating a method for calculating a fourtherror value of each of a plurality of first components according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 17 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause ofa mounting failure for each of a plurality of second components in whicha mounting failure has occurred according to various embodiments of thepresent disclosure.

FIG. 18 is a diagram illustrating a method for controlling a mounteraccording to a cause of a mounting failure according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure.

FIGS. 19A to 19C are graphs indicating mounting failure rates accordingto various embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIGS. 20A to 20C are graphs indicating error values according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 21 illustrates a screen displaying the content of error valueanalysis according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 22 illustrates a screen displaying the content of error valueanalysis according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

FIG. 23 illustrates a screen displaying a solder paste image, acomponent image after a mounting process and a component image after areflow process according to various embodiments of the presentdisclosure.

FIG. 24 is a graph representing mounting failure rates according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Embodiments of the present disclosure are illustrated for describing thetechnical spirit of the present disclosure. The scope of the claimsaccording to the present disclosure is not limited to the embodimentsdescribed below or to the detailed descriptions of these embodiments.

All technical or scientific terms used herein have meanings that aregenerally understood by a person having ordinary knowledge in the art towhich the present disclosure pertains, unless otherwise specified. Theterms used herein are selected only for more clear illustration of thepresent disclosure, and are not intended to limit the scope of claims inaccordance with the present disclosure.

The expressions “include”, “provided with”, “have” and the like usedherein should be understood as open-ended terms connoting thepossibility of inclusion of other embodiments, unless otherwisementioned in a phrase or sentence including the expressions.

A singular expression can include meanings of plurality, unlessotherwise mentioned, and the same applies to a singular expressionstated in the claims.

The terms “first”, “second”, etc. used herein are used to identify aplurality of components from one another, and are not intended to limitthe order or importance of the relevant components.

The expression “based on” used herein is used to describe one or morefactors that influences a decision, an action of judgment or anoperation described in a phrase or sentence including the relevantexpression, and this expression does not exclude additional factorsinfluencing the decision, the action of judgment or the operation.

When a certain component is described as “coupled to” or “connected to”another component, this should be understood as having the meaning thatthe certain component may be coupled or connected directly to the othercomponent or that the certain component may be coupled or connected tothe other component via a new intervening component.

Hereinafter, embodiments of the present disclosure will be describedwith reference to the accompanying drawings. In the accompanyingdrawings, like or relevant components are indicated by like referencenumerals. In the following description of embodiments, repeateddescriptions of the identical or relevant components will be omitted.However, even if a description of a component is omitted, such acomponent is not intended to be excluded in an embodiment.

Although process steps, method steps, algorithms, etc. are illustratedin a sequential order in the flowchart shown in the present disclosure,such processes, methods, and algorithms may be configured to be operatedin any suitable order. In other words, the steps in the processes,methods, and algorithms explained in various embodiments of the presentdisclosure are not necessarily performed in the order described in thepresent disclosure. Further, even though some steps are explained asbeing performed non-simultaneously, such steps may be simultaneouslyperformed in another embodiment. Moreover, the illustration of theprocesses depicted in the figure does not mean that the illustratedprocesses exclude other changes and modifications thereto, that any ofthe illustrated processes or the steps thereof is essential for at leastone of various embodiments of the present disclosure, and that theillustrated processes are desirable.

FIG. 1 illustrates an SMT process line 100 according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure. According to various embodimentsof the present disclosure, the SMT process line 100 may include anelectronic apparatus 110, a solder printing apparatus 120, a screenprinter inspection (SPI) apparatus 130, a mounter 140, a first substrateinspection apparatus 150, an oven 160 and a second substrate inspectionapparatus 170. The substrate 180 to be processed in the SMT process line100 may include various substrates on which various surface-mountdevices may be mounted, such as a strip board, a flexible circuit board,a panel and the like.

In an embodiment, the electronic apparatus 110 may determine a cause ofa mounting failure for each of the components in which a mountingfailure has occurred among a plurality of components mounted on thesubstrate 180. The solder printing apparatus 120 may print solder pasteson the substrate 180. The substrate 180 may include one or more pads.The solder printing apparatus 120 may print a solder paste on each ofthe one or more pads of the substrate 180. For example, at least one padmay be arranged on the substrate at a position where one component is tobe mounted.

The SPI apparatus 130 may inspect the printing state of the solderpastes printed on the substrate 180. For example, the SPI apparatus 130may inspect the printed state of the solder pastes by inspecting theposition, height, volume, shape and the like of the printed solderpastes.

In an embodiment, the mounter 140 may mount a plurality of components onthe substrate 180. The mounter 140 may mount each of the components at apredetermined mounting position of each of the components on thesubstrate 180. The first substrate inspection apparatus 150 may inspecta mounting state of each of the components mounted on the substrate 180.For example, the first substrate inspection apparatus 150 may inspectwhether the mounting state of each of the components is good or poor.

The oven 160 may perform a reflow process on the substrate 180 on whichthe components are mounted. During the reflow process, the solder pasteson the substrate 180 are melted and then solidified, thereby making itpossible to bond the components onto the pads of the substrate 180.After the reflow process, the second substrate inspection apparatus 170may inspect a mounting state of each of the components mounted on thesubstrate 180. For example, after the reflow process is performed, thesecond substrate inspection apparatus 170 inspects whether the mountingposition of each of the components is changed. Accordingly, the secondsubstrate inspection apparatus 170 may inspect again whether themounting state of each of the components is good or poor.

In an embodiment, the electronic apparatus 110 may be connected to otherdevices included in the SMT process line 100 in a wireless or wiredmanner. The electronic apparatus 110 may interwork with other devicesincluded in the SMT process line 100 in real time to perform datatransmission/reception and control of each of the other devices. Forexample, based on the determined cause of a mounting failure, theelectronic apparatus 110 may transmit a control signal for changingcontrol parameters of the mounter 140 or controlling the operation ofthe mounter 140 so as to reduce the mounting failure rate.

In addition, the devices included in the SMT process line 100 mayinterwork with each other to perform data transmission/reception. Forexample, the SPI apparatus 130 may transmit the printed state inspectionresult information or the solder position information of the solderpastes to at least one device in the SMT process line 100 connected in awired or wireless manner. That is, the SPI apparatus 130 may directlytransmit the information to each device, may transmit the information tothe electronic apparatus 110 so that the information is used in theelectronic apparatus 110, or may transmit the inspection information toeach device.

The mounter 140 may transmit information on the components of themounter 140, the real-time mounting information and the like to thefirst substrate inspection apparatus 150 or the second substrateinspection apparatus 170 either directly or through the electronicapparatus 110. The first substrate inspection apparatus 150 or thesecond substrate inspection apparatus 170 may transmit the inspectionresult of the mounting state of each of the components mounted on thesubstrate 180 to the electronic apparatus 110. The electronic apparatus110 may determine a cause of a mounting failure for each of thecomponents in which a mounting failure has occurred by using thereceived inspection result, and may display the information on thedetermined cause of the mounting failure. The detailed configuration andoperation method for the electronic apparatus 110 will be describedlater.

FIG. 2 illustrates the first substrate inspection apparatus 150according to various embodiments of the present disclosure. According tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure, the first substrateinspection apparatus 150 may inspect a mounting state of at least onecomponent mounted on the substrate 210. A transfer part 220 may move asubstrate 210 to a predetermined position to inspect the mounting stateof the component. In addition, when the inspection is completed by thefirst substrate inspection apparatus 150, the transfer part 220 may movethe inspection-completed substrate 210 away from the predeterminedposition, and may move another substrate 211 to the predeterminedposition. Since the configuration and operation of the first substrateinspection apparatus 150 are similar to those of the second substrateinspection apparatus 170, the detailed description of the secondsubstrate inspection apparatus 170 will be omitted.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, the firstsubstrate inspection apparatus 150 may include a first light source 201,a first image sensor 202, a frame 203, a second image sensor 204 and asecond light source 205. The number and arrangement of the first lightsource 201, the first image sensor 202, the frame 203, the second imagesensor 204 and the second light source 205 shown in FIG. 2 are merelyillustrative and not limiting.

In an embodiment, the first light source 201 may irradiate pattern lightto the substrate 210 moved to the predetermined position for theinspection of the mounting state of the component. For example, thepattern light may be light having a pattern of a constant period, whichis irradiated to measure a three-dimensional shape of the substrate 210.The first light source 201 may irradiate pattern light, in which thebrightness of a stripe has a sine wave shape, on-off pattern light, inwhich bright portions and dark portions are repeatedly displayed, ortriangular-wave pattern light, in which the change in brightness is atriangular waveform. However, this is merely for the purpose ofexplanation and the present disclosure is not limited thereto. The firstlight source 201 may irradiate light including various types of patternsin which a change in brightness is repeated at a constant cycle.

In an embodiment, the second light source 205 may irradiatefirst-wavelength light, second-wavelength light and third-wavelengthlight to the substrate 210. For example, the second light source 205 maysequentially irradiate the first-wavelength light, the second-wavelengthlight and the third-wavelength light, or may simultaneously irradiate atleast two of the first-wavelength light, the second-wavelength light andthe third-wavelength light.

In an embodiment, the first image sensor 202 may receive the patternlight, the first-wavelength light, the second-wavelength light and thethird-wavelength light vertically reflected from substrate 210 and thecomponents mounted on the substrate 210. The first image sensor 202 maygenerate an image and a three-dimensional shape of the substrate byusing at least one of the pattern light, the first-wavelength light, thesecond-wavelength light and the third-wavelength light thus received.

In an embodiment, the second image sensor 204 may be disposed below thefirst image sensor 202. The second image sensor 204 may receive thepattern light, the first-wavelength light, the second-wavelength lightand the third-wavelength light reflected from the substrate 210 and thecomponents mounted on the substrate 210 in a direction inclined withrespect to the vertical direction. The second image sensor 204 maygenerate image data using at least one of the pattern light, thefirst-wavelength light, the second-wavelength light and thethird-wavelength light thus received. For example, the first imagesensor 202 and the second image sensor 204 may include a charge coupleddevice (CCD) camera, a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS)camera, or the like. However, this is merely for the purpose ofexplanation. The present disclosure is not limited thereto. Variousimage sensors may be used as the first image sensor 202 and the secondimage sensor 204.

In an embodiment, the first light source 201, the first image sensor 202and the second image sensor 204 may be fixed to a first frame 203. Inaddition, the second light source 205 may be fixed to a second frame 206connected to the first frame 203. For example, when there are aplurality of second light sources 205, some of the plurality of secondlight sources 205 may be fixed to the second frame 206 so as to have thesame height with respect to the ground surface. Other second lightsources 205 may be fixed to the second frame 206 to have differentheights. In FIG. 2, the second frame 206 is illustrated in a ring shape,but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theelectronic apparatus 110 of determining a cause of a mounting failurefor each of the components in which a mounting failure has occurred maybe included in the first substrate inspection apparatus 150 or thesecond substrate inspection apparatus 170, or may be configuredseparately from the first substrate inspection apparatus 150 or thesecond substrate inspection apparatus 170. In this case, the electronicapparatus 110 may be connected to the first substrate inspectionapparatus 150 or the second substrate inspection apparatus 170 in awireless or wired manner to receive the inspection result of themounting failure for each of the components or the measurementinformation indicating the mounting state of each of the components fromthe first substrate inspection apparatus 150 or the second substrateinspection apparatus 170. The detailed configuration and operationmethod for the electronic apparatus 110 will be described later.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the electronic apparatus 110 according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure. According to variousembodiments of the present disclosure, the electronic apparatus 110 mayinclude a memory 310 and a processor 320. In addition, the electronicapparatus 110 may further include at least one of a communicationcircuit 330 and a display 340. Each of the memory 310, the processor320, the communication circuit 330 and the display 340 included in theelectronic apparatus 110 may be one or more. The components included inthe electronic apparatus 110 may be electrically connected through a bus(not shown) to transmit and receive information, control signals,instructions, data, and the like.

In an embodiment, the memory 310 may store instructions or data relatedto at least one other component of the electronic apparatus 110. Inaddition, the memory 310 may store software and/or a program. Forexample, the memory 310 may include an internal memory or an externalmemory. The internal memory may include at least one of a volatilememory (e.g., a DRAM, a SRAM or a SDRAM) and a nonvolatile memory (e.g.,a flash memory, a hard drive or a solid state drive (SSD)). The externalmemory may be functionally or physically connected to the electronicapparatus 110 through various interfaces, and may be a cloud serverinterworked with an external device in a wired or wireless manner.

In one embodiment, the memory 310 may store instructions for operatingthe processor 320. For example, the memory 310 may store instructionsfor allowing the processor 320 to control other components of theelectronic apparatus 110 and to interwork with an external electronicapparatus or an external server. In addition, instructions for enablingeach component to perform a movement may be stored in the memory 310.The processor 320 may control other components of the electronicapparatus 110 and may interwork with an external electronic apparatus oran external server based on the instructions stored in the memory 310.Hereinafter, the operation of the electronic apparatus 110 will bedescribed mainly based on the respective components of the electronicapparatus 110.

In an embodiment, the processor 320 may drive an operating system or anapplication program to control at least one component of the electronicapparatus 110 and to execute various data processing and calculations.For example, the processor 320 may include a central processing unit orthe like, and may be implemented as a system-on-chip (SoC).

In an embodiment, the communication circuit 330 may communicate with anexternal electronic apparatus or an external server. For example, thecommunication circuit 330 may set communication between the electronicapparatus 110 and other apparatuses included in the SMT process line 100and an external server. The communication circuit 330 may be connectedto a network through wireless or wired communication to communicate withother apparatuses included in the SMT process line 100 and an externalserver. As another example, the communication circuit 330 may beconnected by a wire to other apparatuses included in the SMT processline 100 and an external server to perform communication.

The wireless communication may include, for example, cellularcommunication (e.g., LTE, LTE Advance (LTE-A), Code Division MultipleAccess (CDMA), Wideband CDMA (WCDMA), Universal Mobile TelecommunicationSystem (UMTS), Wireless Broadband (WiBro), etc.). In addition, thewireless communication may include short-range wireless communication(e.g., Wireless Fidelity (WiFi), Light Fidelity (LiFi), Bluetooth,Bluetooth Low Power (BLE), Zigbee, Near Field Communication (NFC),etc.).

In one embodiment, the display 340 may include, for example, a liquidcrystal display (LCD), a light emitting diode (LED) display, an organiclight emitting diode (OLED) display, or the like. The display 340 maydisplay, for example, various types of content (e.g., texts, images,videos, icons and/or symbols) to the user. The display 340 may include atouch screen, and may receive, for example, touch, gesture, proximity orhovering input or the like performed through the use of an electronicpen or a part of a user's body.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theprocessor 320 may receive solder paste printing state inspectioninformation or solder position information from the SPI apparatus 130,and may receive the inspection result of a mounting failure for each ofthe first components mounted on the substrate or the measurementinformation indicating the mounting state of each of the components, andthe like from the first substrate inspection apparatus 150 through thecommunication circuit 330. When the electronic apparatus 110 is includedin the first substrate inspection apparatus 150, the processor 320 mayreceive the inspection result of a mounting failure for each of thefirst components or the measurement information indicating the mountingstate of each of the components, and the like without going through thecommunication circuit 330. Hereinafter, description will be made mainlyunder the assumption that the processor 320 is operated based on theinformation received from the first substrate inspection apparatus 150.However this is merely for the purpose of explanation. The presentdisclosure is not limited thereto. The processor 320 may be operatedbased on the information received from the second substrate inspectionapparatus 170.

The processor 320 may determine a cause of a mounting failure for eachof a plurality of second components in which a mounting failure hasoccurred among the plurality of first components by using the inspectionresult of a mounting failure for each of the first components or themeasurement information indicating the mounting state of each of thecomponents. A specific method for determining a cause of a mountingfailure for each of a plurality of second components will be describedlater.

In an embodiment, the processor 320 may determine a cause of a mountingfailure for each of a plurality of second components, and then maydisplay the cause of a mounting failure for each of the plurality ofsecond components on the display 340. In addition, the processor 320 maycontrol the communication circuit 330 to transmit the informationindicating the cause of a mounting failure for each of the plurality ofsecond components to the mounter 140 and the external electronicapparatus (e.g., the user's electronic apparatus).

The user may check the cause of a mounting failure for each of theplurality of second components displayed on the display 340 or thedisplay of the user's electronic apparatus, and may efficiently andaccurately determine what subsequent process should be performed toreduce a mounting failure rate in a subsequent component mountingprocess.

In addition, after determining the cause of a mounting failure for eachof the plurality of second components, the processor 320 transmitsinformation on the cause of a mounting failure or information on thecorrected mounting position for each of the second components to themounter 140 to reduce the mounting failure rate based on the determinedcause of a mounting failure for each of the plurality of secondcomponents. Thus, the processor 320 may notify the cause of a mountingfailure for a component included in the mounter (e.g. a head, a spindle,a nozzle, a feeder, a reel or the like), or may request the replacementof the component. The processor 320 may directly change mounting controlparameters, or may transmit a control signal for controlling theoperation of the mounter 140 to the mounter 140 through thecommunication circuit 330.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause of amounting failure for each of a plurality of components mounted on asubstrate according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

In step 410, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 mayreceive an inspection result of a mounting failure for each of aplurality of first components determined by inspecting a plurality ofsubstrates of the first type on which the plurality of first componentsis mounted. When the electronic apparatus 110 is configured separatelyfrom the first substrate inspection apparatus 150, the processor 320 mayreceive an inspection result from the first substrate inspectionapparatus 150 through the communication circuit 330. When the electronicapparatus 110 is included in the first substrate inspection apparatus150, the processor 320 may directly generate an inspection result of amounting failure for each of a plurality of first components through theinformation measured during the process of inspecting a plurality ofsubstrates of the first type. Hereinafter, description will be mademainly under the assumption that the processor 320 makes use of theinspection result received from the first substrate inspection apparatus150. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Theprocessor 320 may use the inspection result received from the secondsubstrate inspection apparatus 170, or may use both the inspectionresult received from the first substrate inspection apparatus 150 andthe inspection result received from the second substrate inspectionapparatus 170.

In an embodiment, the respective first components may be mounted atdifferent positions on the substrate of the first type. In other words,the mounting positions of the respective first components on thesubstrate of the first type may be different from each other. Forexample, an A component may be mounted at an A position on the substrateof the first type, and a B component may be mounted at a B position onthe substrate of the first type. In this regard, the types of the Acomponent and the B component may be the same or may be different.

In addition, the same type of substrates may indicate that thesubstrates are manufactured according to the same design information. Inother words, since the same type of substrates are manufacturedaccording to the same design information, a specific component may bemounted at a specific position of each of the same type of substrates.For example, according to the design information of the substrate of thefirst type, the A components may be mounted at the A and B positions onthe substrates of the first type.

In an embodiment, the inspection result of a mounting failure for eachof the plurality of first components may include the inspection resultof a mounting failure for each of the plurality of first components oneach of the plurality of substrates of the first type. For example, theinspection result of a mounting failure for the A component among theplurality of first components may include the inspection result of amounting failure for the A component in each of the plurality ofsubstrates of the first type. Therefore, the inspection result of amounting failure for the A component may include information indicatingat least one substrate of the first type in which the mounting failurefor the A component has occurred and at least one substrate of the firsttype in which the mounting failure for the A component has not occurred.The inspection result of a mounting failure may be generated by thefirst substrate inspection apparatus 150 for each of the plurality offirst components and may be transferred to the electronic apparatus 110.

For example, when the component is not mounted on the substrate, whenthe offset of the mounted component is equal to or greater than apredetermined threshold value, and when the coplanarity of the mountedcomponents is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value,the first substrate inspection apparatus 150 may determine that amounting failure has occurred, and may generate an inspection result ofa mounting failure for a component based on the determination result. Inaddition, the first substrate inspection apparatus 150 may transmitmeasurement information indicating a mounting state of each of theplurality of first components (e.g., information indicating whether acomponent is mounted, offset information of the mounted component, andcoplanarity information of the mounted component) to the electronicapparatus 110, and the processor 320 may generate an inspection resultof a mounting failure for each of the plurality of first components byusing measurement information indicating a mounting state of each of theplurality of first components.

In step 420, the processor 320 may calculate a mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first components by using the receivedinspection result. For example, the processor 320 may classify at leastone substrate of the first type in which a mounting failure has notoccurred for each of the plurality of first components and at least onesubstrate of the first type in which a mounting failure has occurred foreach of the plurality of first components by using the inspectionresult. Thereafter, the processor 320 may calculate a mounting failurerate for each of the plurality of first components by using the numberof at least one substrate of the first type in which a mounting failurehas not occurred for each of the plurality of first components and thenumber of at least one substrate of the first type in which a mountingfailure has occurred for each of the plurality of first components.

For example, the processor 320 may classify a plurality of substrates ofthe first type in which a mounting failure has not occurred for the Acomponent and a plurality of substrates of the first type in which amounting failure has occurred for the A component, among fiftysubstrates of the first type inspected by the first substrate inspectionapparatus 150.

When the number of the substrates of the first type in which a mountingfailure has not occurred for the A component is 35 and the number of thesubstrates of the first type in which a mounting failure has occurredfor the A component is 15, the processor 320 may calculate the mountingfailure rate of the A component as 30%. The processor 320 may repeat themounting failure rate calculation process for each of the firstcomponents to calculate the mounting failure rate of each of the firstcomponents.

In step 430, the processor 320 may determine a plurality of secondcomponents in which a mounting failure has occurred among the firstcomponents based on the calculated mounting failure rate of each of thefirst components. For example, the processor 320 may determine aplurality of components having a mounting failure rate equal to orgreater than a predetermined first threshold value among the mountingfailure rates of each of the first components, and may determine thedetermined plurality of components as a plurality of second componentsin which the mounting failure has occurred.

For example, when the mounting failure rate of the A component is 1%,the mounting failure rate of the B component is 4%, and thepredetermined first threshold value is 2%, the processor 320 maydetermine that the mounting failure has not occurred in A component andfurther that a mounting failure has occurred in B component.

By determining a plurality of second components in which the mountingfailure has occurred among the plurality of first components, theprocessor 320 may simplify a process of determining a cause of amountingfailure to be described below. However, depending on the user's setting,step 330 may not be performed.

In step 440, the processor 320 may determine a cause of a mountingfailure for each of the plurality of second components in which amounting failure has occurred, based on the mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first components. For example, the processor320 may determine the cause of a mounting failure for each of theplurality of second components as at least one of a component mountingposition setting error, a mounting condition setting error according toa component type, and a defect of a nozzle included in the mounter.However, this is merely for the purpose of explanation. The presentdisclosure is not limited thereto. A defect of a feeder included in themounter, a defect of a spindle included in the mounter and a defect of areel included in the mounter may be further set as the cause of amounting failure. In this case, the processor 320 may determine thecause of a mounting failure for each of the plurality of secondcomponents as at least one of a component mounting position settingerror, a mounting condition setting error according to a component type,a nozzle defect, a spindle defect, a feeder defect and a reel defect. Aspecific method for determining a cause of a mounting failure for eachof a plurality of second components will be described later.

FIG. 5 illustrates pads, solder pastes and components on a substrateaccording to various embodiments of the present disclosure. As describedabove, the substrate 510 may include one or more pads 540. In anembodiment, the pads 540 may be formed in a pair. When the pads areformed in a pair, the position of the pads 540 may be a position of acenter point 542 which is the center of the two pads. The center of thetwo pads may represent a point that is the center of a line segmentconnecting the centers of the two pads forming a pair. For example, whenthe pad is formed of one pad rather than a pair, such as a ball gridarray (BGA) or the like, the position of the pad 540 may be the centerof the pad. For example, when the substrate 510 is viewed in a XYcoordinate plane, the center point 542 may become an origin point (0,0), and may serve as a reference point indicating the position of thesolder paste and the component.

In an embodiment, solder pastes 550 may be printed on the pads 540. Theposition of the solder pastes 550 may be a position of a center 552 ofthe two solder pastes 550, for example, a position of a center of massof the two solder pastes. The SPI apparatus 130 may measure a positionoffset of the printed solder pastes with respect to the pads. Theposition offset may mean a position coordinate, i.e., a two-dimensionalvector of the center 552 of the solder pastes based on the origin point542.

In addition, a Z coordinate including a height may be added to the XYcoordinate. Based on this, the position offset may be a position of apoint which is the center of at least one solder paste, i.e., a pointwhich is the center of mass. That is, the position offset may mean athree-dimensional vector. The position offset may further includerotation information indicating an angle offset of the solder pasteswith respect to the pads.

In an embodiment, a component 560 may be mounted on the substrate 520 onwhich the solder pastes 550 are printed. For example, the position ofthe component 560 may be a position of a point which is the center 562of the component. The first substrate inspection apparatus 150 maymeasure a position offset of the mounted component with respect to thepads. The position offset may mean a position coordinate, i.e., atwo-dimensional vector of the center 562 of the component based on theorigin point 542. In addition, a Z coordinate including a height of atleast one position of the component may be added based on themeasurement position and slope information of the component. Theposition offset may mean a position coordinate, i.e., athree-dimensional vector of the center 562 of the component based on theorigin point 542.

The substrate 520 on which the component 560 is mounted may be subjectedto a reflow process. During the reflow process, the solder pastes 550may be melted to change positions of the solder pastes 550 and thecomponent 560. The second substrate inspection apparatus 170 may measurea position offset of the component with respect to the pads on thesubstrate 530 subjected to the reflow process. The position offset maymean a position coordinate, i.e., a two-dimensional vector of the center562 of the component 562 with respect to the origin point 542 on thesubstrate 530 subjected to the reflow process. For example, eachposition offset may be defined as an absolute value of the distance fromthe origin point 542 to the corresponding position coordinate, insteadof the form of a position coordinate or a vector. In the presentdisclosure, it can be said that the closer the position offset of thecomponent is to 0 on the substrate subjected to the reflow process, themore successful the component bonding.

FIG. 6 is a table illustrating the mounting failure rates of components,component types and nozzles according to various embodiments of thepresent disclosure. According to various embodiments of the presentdisclosure, the processor 320 may calculate a mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first components. Hereinafter, for the sake ofconvenience of description, it is assumed that a first threshold value,which is a reference for determining a plurality of second components inwhich a mounting failure has occurred among the plurality of firstcomponent, is 2%. Accordingly, the C0 to C13 components, the C17component and the C18 component, which have mounting failure rates equalto or greater than the first threshold value as shown in FIG. 6, may bedetermined to be a plurality of second components in which a mountingfailure has occurred. In addition, the C14 to C16 components and the C19to C21 components, which have mounting failure rates less than the firstthreshold value, may be determined to be components in which a mountingfailure has not occurred.

In an embodiment, the processor 320 may calculate mounting failure ratefor the respective component types and mounting failure rates of thenozzles based on the calculated mounting failure rates of the pluralityof first components. The processor 320 may determine a cause of amounting failure for each of the plurality of second components in whicha mounting failure has occurred, based on the calculated mountingfailure rate for the respective component types and the calculatedmounting failure rates of the nozzles. A specific method for determininga cause of a mounting failure for a plurality of second components willbe described in more detail with reference to FIGS. 7 to 9.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause of amounting failure for a component as a component mounting positionsetting error according to various embodiments of the presentdisclosure.

In step 710, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 mayclassify a plurality of first components, which may be classified as onetype among a plurality of first component types according to theplurality of first component types, into a plurality of first componentgroups. For example, referring to FIG. 6, the processor 320 may classifyC0 to C2 components classified as a P0 component type into a firstcomponent group 611, may classify C3 to C6 components classified as a P1component type into a first component group 612, and may classify C7 andC8 components classified as a P2 component type into a first componentgroup 613. Similarly, the processor 320 may classify C9 to C12components classified as a P3 component type into a first componentgroup 614, may classify C13 to C15 components classified as a P4component type into a first component group 615, may classify a C16component classified as a P5 component type into a first component group616, may classify C17 and C18 components classified as a P6 componenttype into a first component group 617, and may classify C19 to C21components classified as a P7 component type into a first componentgroup 618.

In step 720, the processor 320 may determine a plurality of secondcomponent groups including at least one of the plurality of secondcomponents among the plurality of first component groups. The processor320 may determine the plurality of first component groups 611, 612, 613,614, 615 and 617 including at least one of the plurality of secondcomponents, for which it is determined that a mounting failure hasoccurred, as a plurality of second component groups. As a result, steps730 and 740 to be described below may not be performed on the firstcomponent group 616 and the first component group 618 not included inthe plurality of second component groups.

In step 730, the processor 320 may compare the mounting failure rates ofa plurality of third components included in each of the plurality ofsecond component groups 611, 612, 613, 614, 615 and 617, based on themounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first components. Forexample, the processor 320 may compare the mounting failure rates of aplurality of third components included in each of the plurality ofsecond component groups 611, 612, 613, 614, 615 and 617 in order tocheck whether at least one component having a mounting failure ratedetermined to be an outlier exists among the plurality of thirdcomponents included in each of the plurality of second component groups611, 612, 613, 614, 615 and 617.

For example, the mounting failure rates of the C0 to C2 componentsincluded in the second component group 611 may be compared with eachother, the mounting failure rates of the C3 to C6 components included inthe second component group 612 may be compared with each other, themounting failure rates of the C7 and C8 components included in thesecond component group 613 may be compared with each other, the mountingfailure rates of the C9 to C12 components included in the secondcomponent group 614 may be compared with each other, the mountingfailure rates of the C13 to C15 components included in the secondcomponent group 615 may be compared with each other, and the mountingfailure rates of the C17 and C18 components included in the secondcomponent group 617 may be compared with each other.

For example, the existence or absence of at least one component having amounting failure rate determined as an outlier may be checked throughthe result of comparison of the mounting failure rates of the pluralityof third components included in each of the plurality of secondcomponent groups 611, 612, 613, 614, 615 and 617 by using a method suchas distance-based clustering, Grubb's test, mixed integer quadraticallyconstrained programming (MIQCP), or the like.

In step 740, the processor 320 may determine a cause of a mountingfailure for a plurality of fourth components selected based on thecomparison result of step 730 among the plurality of second componentsin which a mounting failure has occurred as a component mountingposition setting error. For example, the component mounting positionsetting error may include a design error of a component mountingposition, an error caused by incorrectly inputting a component mountingposition into the mounter, and the like.

In an embodiment, the plurality of fourth components may be componentswhich are determined to have a mounting failure rate as an outlier basedon the comparison result of step 730 in one of the plurality of secondcomponent groups 611, 612, 613, 614, 615 and 617. For example, thelowest mounting failure rate among the mounting failure rates of theplurality of third components included in the second component groups611, 612, 613, 614, 615 and 617 may be a criterion for determining theoutlier. For example, the mounting failure rate, 53%, of the C1component in the second component group 611, the mounting failure rate,27%, of the C4 component in the second component group 612, the mountingfailure rate, 29%, of the C7 component in the second component group613, the mounting failure rate, 18%, of the C10 component in the secondcomponent group 614, the mounting failure rate, 1%, of the C15 componentin the second component group 615, and the mounting failure rate, 5%, ofthe C17 component in the second component group 617, may be a criterionfor determining the outlier.

For example, the difference between the mounting failure rate of the C4component, which is a criterion for determining the outlier in thesecond component group 612, and the mounting failure rate of the C6component, may be determined to have an abnormal value in view of thedifference between the mounting failure rate of the C4 component, themounting failure rate of the C3 component and the mounting failure rateof the C5 component. Accordingly, the processor 320 may determine themounting failure rate of the C6 component as the outlier, and maydetermine the C6 component as a component having the mounting failurerate determined as the outlier in the second component group 612.

Similarly, the difference between the mounting failure rate of the C15component, which is a criterion for determining the outlier in thesecond component group 615, and the mounting failure rate of the C13component may be determined to have an abnormal value in view of thedifference between the mounting failure rate of the C15 component andthe mounting failure rate of the C14 component. Accordingly, theprocessor 320 may determine the mounting failure rate of the C13component as the outlier, and may determine the C13 component as acomponent having the mounting failure rate determined as the outlier inthe second component group 615.

Meanwhile, the processor 320 may confirm that a component having amounting failure rate determined as an outlier does not exist in theplurality of second component groups 611, 613, 614 and 617, based on thecomparison result of step 730. As a specific method for determiningwhether a mounting failure rate of specific component is an outlier inview of the comparison between the mounting failure rate of the specificcomponent and the mounting failure rate of other component in the secondcomponent group, it may be possible to use a method such asdistance-based clustering, Grubb's test, MIQCP, or the like as describedabove.

The processor 320 may determine that the mounting failure for thecomponent having the mounting failure rate determined as the outlieramong the components of the same type is caused by a component mountingposition setting error, and may determine that the cause of the mountingfailure for the component having the mounting failure rate determined asthe outlier is a component mounting positioning error.

FIG. 8 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause of amounting failure for a component as a mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type according to various embodiments of thepresent disclosure.

In step 810, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 maycalculate a mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstcomponent type based on the mounting failure rate of each of a pluralityof fifth components among the plurality of first components excludingthe plurality of fourth components whose mounting failure cause isdetermined to be a component mounting position setting error. Forexample, the mounting failure rate of a specific component type is amounting failure rate calculated by using the mounting failure rates ofcomponents classified as a specific component type, and may be used tocheck how many mounting failures have occurred in each component typeand to determine whether or not the cause of a mounting failure is amounting condition setting error according to a component type.

The mounting failure for the plurality of fourth components is mostaffected by the component mounting position setting error. Therefore,when calculating the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality offirst types in consideration of the mounting failure rate of theplurality of fourth components together, the mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first types may not be accurately calculated.Accordingly, the processor 320 may calculate the mounting failure rateof each of the plurality of first component types based on the mountingfailure rate of each of the plurality of fifth components excluding theplurality of fourth components.

In an embodiment, referring to FIG. 6, the processor 320 may calculate amounting failure rate of the P0 component type based on the mountingfailure rates of the C0 to C2 components. For example, the processor 320may calculate a mounting failure rate of the P0 component type as 55%,which is an average of the mounting failure rates of the C0 to C2components. Similarly, the processor 320 may calculate a mountingfailure rate of the P2 component type based on the mounting failurerates of the C7 and C8 components. For example, the processor 320 maycalculate a mounting failure rate of the P2 component type as 31%, whichis an average of the mounting failure rates of the C7 and C8 components.The processor 320 may calculate a mounting failure rate of each of theP3 component type, the P5 component type, the P6 component type and theP7 component type in the same manner.

The processor 320 may calculate a mounting failure rate of the P1component type based on the mounting failure rates of the C3 to C5components. As described above, in order to accurately calculate themounting failure rate of the P1 component type, the processor 320 maynot use the mounting failure rate of the C6 component, the mountingfailure cause of which is determined to be the component mountingposition setting error, to calculate the mounting failure rate of the P1component type. The processor 320 may calculate a mounting failure rateof the P1 component type as 29%, which is an average of the mountingfailure rates of the C3, C4 and C5 components. Similarly, the processor320 may calculate a mounting failure rate of the P4 component type as 1%by using the mounting failure rates of the C14 and C15 components exceptfor the mounting failure rate of the C13 component.

In step 820, the processor 320 may classify a plurality of firstcomponent types into a plurality of first component type groups 621, 622and 623 according to a plurality of first nozzles used to mount theplurality of first components. For example, referring to FIG. 6, when aN0 nozzle is used to mount the C0 to C8 components, the P0 to P2component types may be classified into the first component type group621. In addition, when a N1 nozzle is used to mount the C9 to C16components, the P3 to P5 component types may be classified into thefirst component type group 622. When a N2 nozzle is used to mount theC17 to C21 components, the P6 and P7 component types may be classifiedinto the first component type group 623.

In step 830, the processor 320 may compare the mounting failure rates ofthe plurality of second component types included in each of theplurality of first component type groups 621, 622 and 623. For example,the processor 320 may compare the mounting failure rates of a pluralityof second component types included in each of the plurality of firstcomponent type groups 621, 622 and 623 in order to check whether atleast one component type having a mounting failure rate determined to bean outlier exists among the plurality of second component types includedin each of the plurality of first component type groups 621, 622 and623.

For example, the mounting failure rates of the P0 to P2 component typesincluded in the first component type group 621 may be compared with eachother, the mounting failure rates of the P3 to P5 component typesincluded in the second component type group 622 may be compared witheach other, and the mounting failure rates of the P6 and P7 componenttypes included in the second component type group 623 may be comparedwith each other.

For example, the existence or absence of at least one component typehaving a mounting failure rate determined as an outlier may be checkedthrough the result of comparison of the mounting failure rates of theplurality of second component types included in each of the plurality offirst component type groups 621, 622 and 623 by using a method such asdistance-based clustering, Grubb's test, MIQCP, or the like.

In step 840, the processor 320 may determine a cause of a mountingfailure for a plurality of sixth components classified as a plurality ofthird component types selected based on the comparison result of step830 among the plurality of second components in which a mounting failurehas occurred as a mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type. For example, the mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type may include a setting error of mountercontrol parameters (e.g., a spindle moving speed, a nozzle's componentsuction pressure, a feeder moving speed, a reel subdivision value, etc.)which are set for each component type. However, this is merely for thepurpose of explanation. The present disclosure is not limited thereto.Various mounter control parameter setting errors set for each componenttype may be included in the mounting condition setting error accordingto a component type.

In an embodiment, each of the plurality of third component types may bea component type having a mounting failure rate determined as an outlierbased on the result of comparison of step 830 among the plurality offirst component type groups 621, 622 and 623. For example, the lowestmounting failure rate among the mounting failure rates of the pluralityof second component types included in the plurality of first componenttype groups may be a criterion for determining the outlier. For example,the mounting failure rate, 29%, of the P1 component type in the firstcomponent type group 621, the mounting failure rate, 1%, of the P4component type in the first component type group 622, and the mountingfailure rate, 0.33%, of the P7 component type in the first componenttype group 623, may be used as a criterion for determining the outlier.

For example, the difference between the mounting failure rate of the P1component type, which is a criterion for determining the outlier in thefirst component type group 621, and the mounting failure rate of the P5component type may be determined to have an abnormal value in view ofthe difference between the mounting failure rate of the P1 componenttype and the mounting failure rate of the P2 component type.Accordingly, the processor 320 may determine the mounting failure rateof the P0 component type as the outlier, and may determine the P0component type as a component type having the mounting failure ratedetermined as the outlier in the first component type group 621.Similarly, the processor 320 may determine the P3 component type as acomponent type having the mounting failure rate determined as theoutlier in the first component type group 622.

In addition, when it is determined that the difference between themounting failure rate of the P7 component type, which are criteria fordetermining the outlier in the first component type group 623, and themounting failure rate of the P6 component type is equal to or greaterthan a predetermined threshold value, the processor 320 may determinethe mounting failure rate of the P6 component type as an outlier. Asdescribed above, when there are two mounting failure rates to becompared, the outlier may be determined by comparing the differencebetween the two mounting failure rates and the threshold value. Theprocessor 320 may determine the P6 component type as a component typehaving the mounting failure rate determined as the outlier in the firstcomponent type group 623.

The processor 320 may determine the cause of the mounting failure forthe C0 to C2 components classified as the P0 component type as amounting condition setting error according to a component type. Inaddition, the processor 320 may determine the cause of the mountingfailure for the C9 to C12 components classified as the P3 component typeand the C17 and C18 components classified as the P6 component type as amounting condition setting error according to a component type.

Although not shown, based on the comparison result of step 830, theprocessor 320 may determine that there is no mounting failure ratedetermined as an outlier in a specific component type group. As aspecific method for determining whether the mounting failure rate of aspecific component type is an outlier when compared with the mountingfailure rates of other component types classified as the first componenttype group, it may be possible to use a method such as distance-basedclustering, Grubb's test, MIQCP or the like as described above.

The processor 320 may determine that the mounting failure for thecomponent classified as the component type having the mounting failurerate determined as the outlier among the components mounted through thesame nozzle is caused by the mounting condition setting error accordingto a component type. Accordingly, the processor 320 may determine thatthe cause of the mounting failure for the component classified as thecomponent type having the mounting failure rate determined as theoutlier is a mounting condition setting error according to a componenttype.

FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause of amounting failure for a component as a nozzle defect according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure.

In step 910, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 maycalculate a mounting failure rate of each of a plurality of firstnozzles based on the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality offourth component types except for the plurality of third componenttypes, which is the component type of a plurality of sixth componentshaving a cause of a mounting failure determined as a mounting conditionsetting error according to a component type, among the plurality offirst component types. For example, the mounting failure rate of aspecific nozzle is a mounting failure rate calculated by using themounting failure rates of the components mounted by the specific nozzle,and may be used to check how much mounting failure rate has occurred foreach nozzle and to determine whether or not the cause of the mountingfailure is a nozzle defect.

The mounting failure for the plurality of sixth components is mostaffected by the mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type. Therefore, when calculating the mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first nozzles in consideration of the mountingfailure rate of the third component type as a component type of theplurality of sixth components together, the mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first nozzles may not be accurately calculated.Accordingly, the processor 320 may calculate the mounting failure rateof each of the plurality of first nozzles based on the mounting failurerate of each of the plurality of fourth component types excluding theplurality of third component types.

For example, referring to FIG. 6, the processor 320 may calculate amounting failure rate of a N0 nozzle based on the mounting failure ratesof the P1 and P2 component types. As described above, in order toaccurately calculate the mounting failure rate of the N0 nozzle, theprocessor 320 may not use the mounting failure rate of the P0 componenttype, which is the component type of the C0, C1 and C2 components havinga cause of a mounting failure determined as a mounting condition settingerror according to a component type, to calculate the mounting failurerate of the N0 nozzle. The processor 320 may calculate the mountingfailure rate of the N0 nozzle as 30%, which is an average of themounting failure rates of the P1 and P2 component types.

In addition, the processor 320 may calculate amounting failure rate of aN1 nozzle based on the mounting failure rate of the P4 and P5 componenttypes. In order to accurately calculate the mounting failure rate of theN1 nozzle, the processor 320 may not use the mounting failure rate ofthe P3 component type to calculate the mounting failure rate of the N1nozzle. The processor 320 may calculate the mounting failure rate of theN1 nozzle as 1%, which is an average of the mounting failure rates ofthe P4 and P5 component types.

Furthermore, the processor 320 may calculate amounting failure rate of aN2 nozzle based on the mounting failure rate of the P8 component type.In order to accurately calculate the mounting failure rate of the N2nozzle, the processor 320 may not use the mounting failure rate of theP6 component type to calculate the mounting failure rate of the N2nozzle. The processor 320 may calculate the mounting failure rate of theN2 nozzle as 0.33%, which is the mounting failure rate of the P7component type.

In step 920, the processor 320 may compare the mounting failure rates ofthe plurality of first nozzles with each other. For example, theprocessor 320 may compare the mounting failure rates of the plurality offirst nozzles to check whether there is at least one second nozzlehaving a mounting failure rate determined as an outlier among theplurality of first nozzles. For example, the mounting failure rates ofthe N0 to N2 nozzles may be compared with each other.

For example, the existence or absence of at least one second nozzlehaving a mounting failure rate determined as an outlier may be checkedthrough the result of comparison of the mounting failure rates of theplurality of first nozzles by using a method such as distance-basedclustering, Grubb's test, MIQCP, or the like.

In step 930, the processor 320 may determine that the cause of amounting failure for a plurality of seventh components mounted by the atleast one second nozzle selected based on the result of comparison ofstep 920 among the plurality of second components in which a mountingfailure has occurred is a nozzle defect. For example, the nozzle defectis a mechanical defect of the nozzle itself. Due to the nozzle defect,the nozzle may not operate according to the set control parameters.

In an embodiment, the at least one second nozzle may be a nozzle havinga mounting failure rate determined as an outlier based on the result ofcomparison of step 920 among the plurality of first nozzles. Forexample, the lowest mounting failure rate among the mounting failurerates of the plurality of first nozzles may be a criterion fordetermining an outlier. For example, the mounting failure rate of the N2nozzle, 0.33%, may be a criterion for determining an outlier.

For example, the difference between the mounting failure rate of the N2nozzle, which is a criterion for determining an outlier, and themounting failure rate of the N0 nozzle may be determined to have anabnormal value in view of the difference between the mounting failurerate of the N2 nozzle and the mounting failure rate of the N1 nozzle.Accordingly, the processor 320 may determine that the mounting failurerate of the N0 nozzle is an outlier, and may determine the N0 nozzle asa nozzle having a mounting failure rate determined as an outlier. Inaddition, the processor 320 may determine the cause of the mountingfailure for the C0 to C8 components mounted by the N0 nozzle as a nozzledefect.

The processor 320 may determine that the mounting failure for thecomponent mounted by a nozzle having a mounting failure rate determinedas an outlier among the components mounted by a plurality of nozzlesattached to the same spindle during a component mounting process hasoccurred due to a nozzle defect. Accordingly, the processor 320 maydetermine that the cause of the mounting failure for the componentmounted by the nozzle having the mounting failure rate determined as theoutlier is a nozzle defect.

In an embodiment, the mounting failure for the component may occur dueto various causes of a mounting failure. Therefore, the causes of themounting failure for the component may be determined to be two or morerather than one. For example, the causes of the mounting failure for theC0 to C2 components may be determined as a mounting condition settingerror according to a component type and a nozzle defect error, and thecauses of the mounting failure for the C6 component may be determined asa component mounting position setting error and a nozzle defect error.

Meanwhile, in FIGS. 7 to 9, for the sake of convenience, description hasbeen made mainly on the case where the cause of the mounting failure forthe plurality of second components in which a mounting failure hasoccurred is determined as at least one of the component mountingposition setting error, the mounting condition setting error accordingto a component type and the nozzle defect. However, the presentdisclosure is not limited thereto. For example, the processor 320 mayfurther use a mounting failure rate for each of a plurality of feedersincluded in the mounter, a mounting failure rate for each of a pluralityof spindles included in the mounter and a mounting failure rate for eachof a plurality of reels included in the mounter, to determine the causeof the mounting failure for the plurality of second components. In thiscase, the processor 320 may determine the cause of the mounting failurefor the plurality of second components as at least one of a componentmounting position setting error, a mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type, a feeder defect, a nozzle defect, aspindle defect and a reel defect.

For example, the mounting failure rate of the plurality of feeders maybe calculated in the same manner as the method for calculating themounting failure rate of each of the plurality of nozzles based on themounting failure rate of each of the plurality of component types. Inthis case, the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of nozzlesmay be calculated through the use of the mounting failure rate of eachof the plurality of feeders in the same manner as the method forcalculating the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality ofnozzles using the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality ofcomponent types described above. Furthermore, the mounting failure rateof the plurality of spindles may be calculated based on the mountingfailure rate of each of the plurality of nozzles in the same manner asthe method for calculating the mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of nozzles using the mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of component types described above. In addition, the methodfor determining the cause of the mounting failure for at least one ofthe plurality of second components as a feeder defect based on thecalculated mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of feeders,the method for determining the cause of the mounting failure for atleast one of the plurality of second components as a spindle defect, andthe method for determining the cause of the mounting failure for atleast one of the plurality of second components as a reel defect are thesame as the method for determining the cause of the mounting failuredescribed above. Therefore, detailed description thereof will beomitted.

FIG. 10 is a flowchart illustrating a method for calculating acontribution degree to occurrence of a mounting failure according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

In step 1010, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 mayadjust a mounting failure rate of at least one third nozzle except forthe at least one second nozzle selected in step 930 among the pluralityof first nozzles. For example, the processor 320 may adjust the mountingfailure rate of the at least one third nozzle to 0%. Since the nozzledefect is not a cause of a mounting failure for the components mountedusing the at least one third nozzle, the processor 320 may determinethat the nozzle defect has no contribution to the occurrence of themounting failure, and may adjust the mounting failure rate of the atleast one third nozzle to 0%. For example, referring to FIG. 11, theprocessor 320 may adjust the mounting failure rates of the N1 nozzle andthe N2 nozzle to 0%.

In step 1020, the processor 320 may adjust the mounting failure rate ofat least one component type among the plurality of first component typesbased on at least one of the mounting failure rate of the at least onesecond nozzle and the mounting failure rate of the at least one thirdnozzle adjusted in step 1010.

For example, the processor 320 may adjust the mounting failure rate ofthe remaining plurality of component types other than the plurality ofsecond component types selected in step 840 among the plurality of firstcomponent types to 0%. For the components classified as the remainingplurality of component types, the mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type is not a cause of a mounting failure.Therefore, the processor 320 may determine that the mounting conditionsetting error according to a component type has no contribution to theoccurrence of the mounting failure, and may adjust the mounting failurerate to 0%. For example, referring to FIG. 11, the processor 320 mayadjust the mounting failure rates of the P1 component type, the P2component type, the P4 component type, the P5 component type and the P7component type to 0%.

In addition, the processor 320 may adjust the mounting failure rate ofthe P0 component type to 25% which is reduced by 30% as the mountingfailure rate of the N0 nozzle from 55% as the mounting failure rate ofthe P0 component type calculated in step 810. The processor 320 maydetermine that the mounting failure rate of the N0 nozzle is included inthe mounting failure rate of the P0 component type calculated in step810, and may adjust the mounting failure rate of the P0 component type.Meanwhile, the mounting failure rate of the P3 component type and themounting failure rate of the P6 component type may not be adjustedbecause the mounting failure rate of the N1 nozzle and the N2 nozzle is0%.

In step 1030, the processor 320 may adjust the mounting failure rate ofat least one of the plurality of first components based on at least oneof the mounting failure rate of at least one second nozzle, the mountingfailure rate of at least one third nozzle adjusted in step 1010 and themounting failure rate of at least one component type adjusted in step1020.

For example, the processor 320 may adjust the mounting failure rate ofthe remaining plurality of components other than the plurality of fourthcomponents selected in step 740 among the at least one component forwhich it is determined that a mounting failure has not occurred and theplurality of second components for which it is determined that amounting failure has occurred among the plurality of first componenttypes to 0%. For the remaining plurality of components, the componentmounting position setting error is not a cause of a mounting failure.Therefore, the processor 320 may determine that the component mountingposition setting error has no contribution to the occurrence of themounting failure, and may adjust the mounting failure rate to 0%. Forexample, referring to FIG. 9, the processor 320 may adjust the mountingfailure rates of each of the C0 to C5 components, the C7 to C12components and the C14 to C21 components to 0%.

In addition, the processor 320 may adjust the mounting failure rate ofthe C6 component type to 15% which is reduced by 30% as the mountingfailure rate of the N0 nozzle from 45% as the mounting failure rate ofthe C6 component calculated in step 420. The processor 320 may determinethat the mounting failure rate of the N0 nozzle is included in themounting failure rate of the C6 component calculated in step 420, andmay adjust the mounting failure rate of the C6 component. In addition,unlike FIG. 9, when the mounting failure rate of the P4 type is not 0%,the processor 320 may determine that the mounting failure rate of the P4type is also included in the mounting failure rate of the C6 componenttype. Thus, the processor 320 may also reduce the mounting failure rateof the P4 type in the mounting failure rate of the C6 component type,thereby adjusting the mounting failure rate of the C6 component type.Meanwhile, the mounting failure rate of the C13 component may not beadjusted because the mounting failure rate of each of the P4 componenttype and the N1 nozzle is 0%.

In step 1040, the processor 320 may calculate a contribution degree ofeach of the component mounting position setting error, the mountingcondition setting error according to a component type and the nozzledefect to the occurrence of the mounting failure for the plurality ofsecond components based on the result of the mounting failure rateadjustment performed in steps 1010 to 1030.

For example, the processor 320 may determine that the contributiondegree of the P0 mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type to the occurrence of the mounting failure for the C0 toC2 components is 45% and further that the contribution degree of the N0nozzle defect to the occurrence of the mounting failure for the C0 to C2components is 55%. In addition, the processor 320 may determine that thecontribution degree of the N0 nozzle defect to the occurrence of themounting failure for the C3 to C5 components and the C7 and C8components is 100%, the contribution degree of the C6 component mountingposition setting error to the occurrence of the mounting failure for theC6 component is 33%, and the contribution degree of the N0 nozzle defectto the occurrence of the mounting failure for the C6 component is 67%.

Similarly, the processor 320 may determine that the contribution degreeof the P3 mounting condition setting error according to a component typeto the occurrence of the mounting failure for the C9 to C12 componentsis 100%, the contribution degree of the C13 component mounting positionsetting error to the occurrence of the mounting failure for the C13component is 100%, and the contribution degree of the P6 mountingcondition setting error according to a component type to the occurrenceof the mounting failure for the C17 and C18 components is 100%.

As described above, the processor 320 may adjust the mounting failurerate calculated in the mounting failure cause determination process inorder to calculate the contribution degree of each of the componentmounting position setting error, the mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type and the defect of the nozzle included inthe mounter to the occurrence of the mounting failure for the pluralityof second components in which a mounting failure has occurred.

In addition, the processor 320 may display, on the display 340, themounting failure rates of FIG. 6 calculated in the mounting failurecause determination process and the mounting failure rate of FIG. 11obtained by adjusting the mounting failure rate calculated in themounting failure cause determination process. For example, the processor320 may set the height value of the cells displaying the mountingfailure rates of the C6 and C13 components having the mounting failurerate determined as an outlier among the C0 to C21 components so as tobecome greater than the height value of the cells displaying themounting failure rates of other components. The height value of thecells displaying the mounting failure rates of the C6 and C13 componentsmay be determined based on the values of the mounting failure rates ofthe C6 and C13 components. In addition, the color of the cellsdisplaying the mounting failure rates of the C6 and C13 components mayalso be distinguished from the color of the cells displaying themounting failure rates of other components. However, this is merely forthe purpose of explanation. The present disclosure is not limitedthereto. The cells displaying the mounting failure rates of the C6 andC13 components may be indicated in various manners so as to bedistinguished from the cells displaying the mounting failure rates ofother components.

Similarly, the processor 320 may display, on the display 340, the cellsdisplaying the mounting failure rates of the P0, P3 and P6 componenttypes having the mounting failure rates determined as outliers among theP0 to P7 component types so as to be distinguished from the cellsdisplaying the mounting failure rates of other component types. Inaddition, the processor 320 may also display, on the display 340, thecells displaying the mounting failure rate of the N1 nozzle having themounting failure rate determined as an outlier among the N0 to N2nozzles so as to be distinguished from the cells displaying the mountingfailure rates of other nozzles. This enables the user to intuitively andeasily recognize the cause of the mounting failure for each of theplurality of second components in which a mounting failure has occurred.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause ofa mounting failure for each of a plurality of components mounted on asubstrate according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

In step 1210, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 mayreceive a first error value of each of the plurality of first componentsdetermined by inspecting the plurality of substrates of the first typeon which the plurality of first components are mounted. When theelectronic apparatus 110 is configured separately from the firstsubstrate inspection apparatus 150, the processor 320 may receive afirst error value of each of the plurality of first components throughthe communication circuit 330. When the electronic apparatus 110 isincluded in the first substrate inspection apparatus 150, the processor320 may directly generate a first error value of each of the pluralityof first components through the information measured during the processof inspecting the plurality of substrates of the first type.

In an embodiment, the respective first components may be mounted atdifferent positions on the substrate of the first type. In other words,the mounting positions of the respective first components on thesubstrate of the first type may be different from each other. Forexample, the A component may be mounted at the A position on thesubstrate of the first type, and the B component may be mounted at the Bposition on the substrate of the first type. In this regard, the typesof the A component and the B component may be the same or may bedifferent.

In addition, the same type of substrates may indicate that thesubstrates are manufactured according to the same design information. Inother words, since the same type of substrates are manufacturedaccording to the same design information, a specific component may bemounted at a specific position of each of the same type of substrates.For example, according to the design information of the substrate of thefirst type, the A components may be mounted at the A and B positions onthe substrates of the first type.

In an embodiment, the first error value of each of the plurality offirst components may be generated based on the measurement valuesmeasured for the inspection of the substrate performed by the firstsubstrate inspection apparatus 150. For example, the first error valueof each of the plurality of first components by comparing theinformation measured through the inspection of the plurality ofsubstrates of the first type, for example, the mounting position of eachof the plurality of first components and the coplanarity of each of theplurality of first components, with predetermined reference values.

In an embodiment, the first error value of each of the plurality offirst components may include at least one of an error value for themounting position of each of the plurality of first components and anerror value for the coplanarity of each of the plurality of firstcomponents. For example, an error value for the mounting position ofeach of the plurality of first components may be calculated by comparingthe mounting position of each of the plurality of first componentsmeasured through inspection with the reference position of each of theplurality of first components identified through design information ofthe substrate of the first type. In addition, an error value for themounting position of each of the plurality of first components may becalculated by comparing the coplanarity of each of the plurality offirst components measured through inspection with the referencecoplanarity of each of the plurality of first components identifiedthrough the design information of the substrate of the first type. Inthis way, the first error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents may be generated by comparing the measurement value measuredthrough inspection with the reference value identified through thedesign information of the substrate.

In addition, the first error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents may be generated using a plurality of measurement values ofeach of the plurality of first components measured in the process ofinspecting the plurality of substrates of the first type. For example,the first error value of the A component among the plurality of firstcomponents may be generated based on one of an average value, a medianvalue, a mode value, a minimum value, a maximum value, a standarddeviation or the like of a plurality of first error values obtained bycomparing a plurality of measurement values of the A component measuredin the inspection of each of the plurality of substrates of the firsttype with a reference value. However, this is merely for the purpose ofexplanation. The present disclosure is not limited thereto.

In addition, the measurement information indicating whether each of theplurality of first components is mounted on the substrate of the firsttype may be used to determine a cause of a mounting failure for each ofthe plurality of first components. In this case, however, the mountingfailure rate of each of the plurality of first components calculatedbased on the measurement information indicating whether each of theplurality of first components is mounted on the substrate of the firsttype may be used in place of the first error value of each of theplurality of first components to determine a cause of a mounting failurefor each of the plurality of first components. Hereinafter, for sake ofconvenience of description, the description will be made mainly on amethod for determining a cause of a mounting failure for each of theplurality of first components using the first error value of each of theplurality of first components. However, the present disclosure is notlimited thereto. Even if the mounting failure rate of each of the firstcomponents is used, the cause of the mounting failure for each of theplurality of first posture may be determined in the same manner.

In step 1220, the processor 320 may divide the first error value of eachof the plurality of first components into a plurality of error valuescaused by each of a plurality of predetermined mounting failure causes.For example, when the plurality of mounting failure causes are set to acomponent mounting position setting error, a mounting condition settingerror according to a component type and a defect of a nozzle included inthe mounter, the processor 320 may divide the first error value of eachof the plurality of first components into a second error value caused bya component mounting position setting error, a third error value causedby a mounting condition setting error according to a component type anda fourth error value caused by a nozzle detect. Since the error valuesof the components measured through inspection of the substrate may beaffected by each of a plurality of mounting failure causes, the sum ofthe error values caused by the plurality of mounting failure causes maybe an error value of a component measured through the inspection of thesubstrate. Accordingly, the processor 320 may divide the first errorvalue of each of the plurality of first components into a plurality oferror values caused by a plurality of predetermined mounting failurecauses.

In addition, a defect of a feeder included in the mounter, a defect of aspindle included in the mounter and a defect of a reel included in themounter may be further set as a plurality of mounting failure causes bythe user's setting. In this case, the processor 320 may divide the firsterror value into second to fourth error values, a fifth error valuecaused by the defect of the feeder, a sixth error value caused by thedefect of the spindle and a seventh error value caused by the defect ofthe reel. In the following description, for the sake of convenience ofdescription, the subdivision of the first error value into the second tofourth error values will be mainly described. However, the presentdisclosure is not limited thereto. The first error value may be dividedinto a plurality of error values corresponding to the number of themounting failure causes. A specific method for dividing a plurality offirst error values will be described later.

In step 1230, the processor 320 may determine a plurality of secondcomponents in which a mounting failure has occurred among the pluralityof first components based on the plurality of error values divided instep 1220. For example, the processor 320 may determine a plurality ofsecond components in which a mounting failure has occurred among theplurality of first components based on the second error value, the thirderror value and the fourth error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents. The processor 320 may determine a plurality of componentsfalling outside a first range in which at least one of the second errorvalue, the third error value and the fourth error value of each of theplurality of first components is set, and may determine the plurality ofdetermined components as a plurality of second components in which amounting failure has occurred.

For example, the first range is an error value range as a criterion fordetermining a mounting failure for a component. The first range may bedifferently set for each of the second error value, the third errorvalue and the fourth error value, or may be identically set.

For example, it is assumed that the first error value of the A componentamong the plurality of first components is 1 μm, the first error valueis divided into a second error value of 1 μm, a third error value of −30μm and a fourth error of 30 μm, and the set first range is from −3 μm to3 μm, the third error value and the fourth error value of the Acomponent are out of the first range. Therefore, the processor 320 maydetermine the A component as a component in which a mounting failure hasoccurred even if the first error value as the sum of the second tofourth error values exists within the first range. In contrast, it isassumed that the first error value of the B component among theplurality of first components is 1 μm, the first error value is dividedinto a second error value of 1 μm, a second error value of −2 μm and athird error of −2 μm, and the set first range is from −3 μm to 3 μm, allof the second error value, the third error value and the fourth errorvalue of the B component exist within the first range. Therefore, theprocessor 320 may determine the B component as a component in which amounting failure has not occurred.

The processor 320 may simplify a mounting failure cause determinationprocess to be described below by determining a plurality of secondcomponents in which a mounting failure has occurred among the pluralityof first components. However, depending on the user's setting, step 1230may not be performed.

In step 1240, the processor 320 may determine a cause of a mountingfailure for each of the plurality of second components based on theplurality of error values of each of the plurality of second componentsfor which it is determined that a mounting failure has occurred. Forexample, the processor 320 may determine a cause of a mounting failurefor each of the plurality of second components based on the second errorvalue, the third error value and the fourth error value of each of theplurality of second components. For example, the processor 320 maydetermine the cause of the mounting failure for each of the plurality ofsecond components as at least one of a component mounting positionsetting error, a mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type and a nozzle defect. However, this is merely for thepurpose of explanation. The present disclosure is not limited thereto. Adefect of a feeder, a defect of a spindle and a defect of a reel may befurther set as mounting failure causes. In this case, the processor 320may determine the cause of the mounting failure for each of theplurality of second components as at least one of a component mountingposition setting error, a mounting condition setting error according toa component type, a nozzle defect, a spindle defect, a feeder defect anda reel defect. A specific method for determining the cause of themounting failure for each of the plurality of second components will bedescribed later.

FIGS. 13A and 13B are tables illustrating first to fourth error valuesof each of a plurality of first components according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure. According to various embodimentsof the present disclosure, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus110 may display, on the display 340, the first error value of each ofthe plurality of first components received from the first substrateinspection apparatus 150 as shown in FIG. 13A. In addition, theprocessor 320 may display the second to fourth error values of each ofthe plurality of first components obtained by dividing the first errorvalue of each of the plurality of first components as shown in FIG. 13B.Hereinafter, a method for dividing the first error value of each of theplurality of first components shown in FIG. 13A into the second tofourth error values of each of the plurality of first components shownin FIG. 13B, and determining the cause of the mounting failure for theplurality of second components using the second to fourth error valueswill be described.

In addition, for the sake of convenience of description, the first errorvalue will be described as being an error value of a mounting positionof each of the plurality of first components. However, the presentdisclosure is not limited thereto. The following description may applyeven when the first error value is an error value for the coplanarity ofeach of the first components, or even when a mounting failure rate isused instead of the first error value.

FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating a method for calculating a seconderror value of each of a plurality of first components according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

In operation 1410, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 mayclassify the plurality of first components classified as one of theplurality of first component types into a plurality of first componentgroups according to the plurality of first component types. For example,referring to FIG. 13B, the processor 320 may classify the C0 to C2components classified as the P0 component type into a first componentgroup 1311, may classify the C3 to C6 components classified as the P1component type into a first component group 1312, and may classify theC7 and C9 components classified as the P2 component type into a firstcomponent group 1313. Similarly, the processor 320 may classify the C9to C12 components classified as the P3 component type into a firstcomponent group 1314, may classify the C13 to C15 components classifiedas the P4 component type into a first component group 1315, may classifythe C16 component classified as the P5 component type into a firstcomponent group 1316, may classify the C17 and C18 components classifiedas the P6 component type into a first component group 1317, and mayclassify the C19 to C21 components classified as the P7 component typeinto a first component group 1318.

In step 1420, the processor 320 may compare first error values of aplurality of third components included in each of the plurality of firstcomponent groups 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317 and 1318 basedon the first error value of each of the plurality of first components.For example, the processor 320 may compare first error values of aplurality of third components included in each of the plurality of firstcomponent groups 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317 and 1318 inorder to check whether there exists at least one component having thefirst error value determined as an outlier among the plurality of thirdcomponents included in each of the plurality of first component groups1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317 and 1318.

For example, the first error values of the C0 to C2 components includedin the first component group 1311 may be compared with each other, thefirst error values of the C3 to C6 components included in the firstcomponent group 1312 may be compared with each other, the first errorvalues of the C7 and C8 components included in the first component group1313 may be compared with each other, the first error values of the C9to C12 components included in the first component group 1314 may becompared with each other, the first error values of the C13 to C15components included in the first component group 1315 may be comparedwith each other, the first error values of the C17 and C18 componentsincluded in the first component group 1317 may be compared with eachother, and the first error values of the C19 to C21 components includedin the first component group 1318 may be compared with each other. Sinceonly the C16 component is included in the first component group 1316,the process of comparing the first error values with each other may beomitted.

For example, the existence or absence of at least one component having amounting failure rate determined as an outlier may be checked throughthe result of comparison of the first error values of the plurality ofthird components included in each of the plurality of first componentgroups 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317 and 1318 by using amethod such as distance-based clustering, Grubb's test, mixed integerquadratically constrained programming (MIQCP), or the like.

In step 1430, the processor 320 may select a plurality of fourthcomponents from among the plurality of first components based on thecomparison result of step 1420. For example, the plurality of fourthcomponents may be components having a first error value determined as anoutlier based on the comparison result of step 1420 in one of theplurality of first component groups 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316,1317 and 1318.

For example, in the first component group 1312, the difference betweenthe first error value of the C6 component and the first error value ofeach of the C3 to C5 components may be determined to have an abnormalvalue in view of the difference between the first error values of the C3to C5 components. Accordingly, the processor 320 may determine that thefirst error value of the C6 component is an outlier, and may determinethe C6 component as a component having a first error value determined asthe outlier in the first component group 1312. Similarly, the processor320 may determine the C13 component as a component having a first errorvalue determined as the outlier in the first component group 1315.

Meanwhile, the processor 320 may determine that a component having afirst error value determined as an outlier does not exist in theplurality of first component groups 1311, 1313, 1314, 1317 and 1318,based on the comparison result of step 1420. As a specific method fordetermining whether the mounting failure rate of a specific componenttype is an outlier when compared with the mounting failure rates ofother component types classified to the component type group, it may bepossible to use a method such as distance-based clustering, Grubb'stest, MIQCP or the like as described above.

In step 1440, the processor 320 may calculate an average error value ofeach of the plurality of first component group 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314,1315, 1316, 1317 and 1318 based on the first error values of theplurality of fifth components except for the plurality of fourthcomponents selected in step 1430 among the plurality of secondcomponents. For example, the processor 320 may exclude the C6 componentfor the first component group 1312 in which the component having thefirst error value determined as the outlier exists, and may calculate anaverage error value based on the first error values of the C3 to C5components. Referring to FIG. 13A, an average error value of the firsterror values of the C3 to C5 components, 29 μm, may be calculated as theaverage error value of the first component group 1312. Similarly, forthe first component group 1315, an average error value of the firsterror values of the C14 and C15 components except for the C13 component,1 μm, may be calculated as the average error value of the firstcomponent group 1315.

Meanwhile, for the plurality of first component groups 1311, 1313, 1314,1316, 1317 and 1318 in which a component having a first error valuedetermined as an outlier does not exist, the processor 320 may calculatethe average error value of the components included in each of theplurality of first component groups 1311, 1313, 1314, 1316, 1317 and1318 as an average error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponent groups 1311, 1313, 1314, 1316, 1317 and 1318.

In step 1450, the processor 320 may calculate a second error value ofeach of the first components caused by a component mounting positionsetting error based on the first error value of each of the plurality offirst components and the average error value of each of the plurality offirst component groups 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316 and 1317calculated in step 1440. For example, the component mounting positionsetting error may include a design error for a component mountingposition, an error caused by incorrectly inputting a component mountingposition into the mounter, and the like. The second error value mayrepresent an error value generated due to the component mountingposition setting error.

In an embodiment, the second error value of each of the plurality offirst components may be calculated based on the difference between theerror value of each of the plurality of first components and the averageerror value of one of a plurality of first groups including theplurality of first components. For example, the processor 320 maycalculate a second error value of the C0 component, as 0 μm, which isthe difference between 55 μm, which is the first error value of the C0component, and 55 μm, which is the average error value of the firstcomponent group 1311 including the C0 component. Furthermore, theprocessor 320 may calculate a second error value of the C6 componenthaving the first error value determined as the outlier, as 16 μm, whichis the difference between 45 μm, which is the first error value of theC6 component, and 29 μm, which is the average error value of the firstcomponent group 1312 including the C6 component. Similarly, second errorvalues may be calculated for the remaining components. The second errorvalues calculated as described above may be used in a process ofdetermining a plurality of second components in which a mounting failurehas occurred among a plurality of first components and in a process ofdetermining a cause of a mounting failure for each of a plurality ofsecond components.

FIG. 15 is a flowchart illustrating a method for calculating a thirderror value of each of a plurality of first components according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

In step 1510, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 maycalculate an error value of each of the plurality of first componenttypes based on an average error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponent groups 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317 and 1318calculated in step 1440. For example, the processor 320 may calculatethe average error value of the first component group corresponding toeach of the plurality of first component types as an error value of eachof the plurality of first component types. For example, the error valueof a specific component type may be used to check how much an errorvalue has occurred for each component type and to calculate a thirderror value caused by a mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type.

For example, referring to FIG. 13B, the error value of the P0 componenttype may be calculated as 55 μm, which is an average error value of thefirst component group 1311 corresponding to the P0 component type, theerror value of the P1 component type may be calculated as 29 μm, whichis an average error value of the first component group 1312corresponding to the P1 component type, and the error value of the P2component type may be calculated as 31 μm, which is an average errorvalue of the first component group 1313 corresponding to the P2component type. Similarly, an error value may be calculated for each ofthe P3 to P7 component types.

In step 1520, the processor 320 may classify the plurality of firstcomponent types into a plurality of first component type groups 1321,1322 and 1323 according to the plurality of first nozzles used to mountthe plurality of first components. For example, referring to FIG. 13B,when the N0 nozzle is used to mount the C0 to C8 components, the P0 toP2 component types may be classified into the first component type group1321. In addition, when the N1 nozzle is used to mount the C9 to C16components, the P3 to P5 component types may be classified into thefirst component type group 1322. When the N2 nozzle is used to mount theC17 to C21 components, the P6 and P7 component types may be classifiedinto the first component type group 1323.

In step 1530, the processor 320 may compare the error values of theplurality of second component types included in each of the plurality offirst component type groups 1321, 1322 and 1323, based on the errorvalue of each of the plurality of first component types. For example,the processor 320 may compare the mounting failure rates of theplurality of second component types included in each of the plurality offirst component type groups 1321, 1322 and 1323 in order to checkwhether there exists at least one component type having an error valuedetermined as an outlier among the plurality of second component typesincluded in each of the plurality of first component type groups 1321,1322 and 1323.

For example, the error values of the P0 to P2 component types includedin the first component type group 1321 may be compared with each other,the error values of the P3 to P5 component types included in the secondcomponent type group 1322 may be compared with each other, and the errorvalues of the P6 and P7 component types included in the second componenttype group 1323 may be compared with each other.

For example, the existence or absence of at least one component typehaving an error value determined as an outlier may be checked throughthe result of comparison of the mounting failure rates of the pluralityof second component types included in each of the plurality of firstcomponent type groups 1321, 1322 and 1323 by using a method such asdistance-based clustering, Grubb's test, MIQCP, or the like.

In step 1540, the processor 320 may select a plurality of thirdcomponent types from among the plurality of first component types basedon the comparison result of step 1530. For example, the plurality ofthird component types may be component types having an error valuedetermined as an outlier based on the comparison result of step 1530 inone of the plurality of first component type groups 1321, 1322 and 1323.

For example, in the first component type group 1321, the differencebetween the error value of the P0 component type and the error value ofeach of the P1 and P2 component types may be determined to have anabnormal value in view of the difference between the error values of theP1 and P2 components. Accordingly, the processor 320 may determine thatthe error value of the P0 component type is an outlier, and maydetermine the P0 component type as a component having an error valuedetermined as the outlier in the first component type group 1321.Similarly, the processor 320 may determine the P3 component type as acomponent type having an error value determined as the outlier in thefirst component type group 1322, and may determine the P6 component typeas a component type having an error value determined as the outlier inthe first component type group 1323. As a specific method fordetermining whether the error value of a specific component type is anoutlier when compared with the error values of other component typesclassified as the component type group, it may be possible to use amethod such as distance-based clustering, Grubb's test, MIQCP or thelike as described above.

In step 1550, the processor 320 may calculate an average error value ofeach of the plurality of first component type group 1321, 1322 and 1323based on the error values of the plurality of fourth component typesexcept for the plurality of third component types selected in step 1540among the plurality of first component types. For example, the processor320 may exclude the P0 component type having an error value determinedas an outlier from the first component type group 1321, and maycalculate an average error value based on the error values of the P1 andP2 component types. For example, the processor 320 may calculate 30 μm,which is an average error value of the error values of the P1 and P2component types, as an average error value of the first component typegroup 1321. Similarly, for the first component group 1322, the processor320 may calculate 1 μm, which is an average error value of the P4 and P5component types except for the P3 component type, as an average errorvalue of the first component type group 1322. Since only the P7component type except for the P6 component type exists in the firstcomponent type group 1323, the error value of the P7 component type,0.33 um, may be calculated as an average error value of the firstcomponent type group 1323.

In step 1560, the processor 320 may calculate a third error value ofeach of the plurality of first components caused by a mounting conditionsetting error according to a component type, based on the error value ofeach of the plurality of first component types and the average errorvalue of each of the plurality of first component type groups 1321, 1322and 1323 calculated in step 1550. For example, the mounting conditionsetting error according to a component type may include a setting errorof mounter control parameters (e.g., a moving speed of a spindle, acomponent suction pressure of a nozzle, a moving speed of a feeder, adecomposition value of a reel, etc.) set for each component type.However, this is merely for the purpose of description. The presentdisclosure is not limited thereto. Various mounter control parametersetting errors set for each component type may be included in themounting condition setting error according to a component type. Thethird error value may indicate an error value generated due to such amounting condition setting error according to a component type.

In an embodiment, the third error value of each of the plurality offirst components may be calculated based on the difference between theerror value of each of the plurality of first components and the averageerror value of one of a plurality of first component type groups 1321,1322 and 1323 including the plurality of first component types. Forexample, the processor 320 may calculate a third error value of each ofthe C0 to C2 components, as 25 μm, which is a difference between 55 μm,which is the error value of the P0 component type including the C0 to C2components, and 30 μm, which is the average error value of the firstcomponent type group 1321 including the P0 component type. Furthermore,the processor 320 may calculate a third error value of each of the C3 toC6 components, as −1 μm, which is a difference between 29 μm, which isthe error value of the P1 component type including the C3 and C6components, and 30 μm, which is the average error value of the firstcomponent type group 1321. Similarly, third error values may becalculated for the remaining components. The third error valuescalculated as described above may be used in a process of determining aplurality of second components in which a mounting failure has occurredamong a plurality of first components and in a process of determining acause of a mounting failure for each of a plurality of secondcomponents.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart illustrating a method for calculating a fourtherror value of each of a plurality of first components according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

In step 1610, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 maycalculate an error value of each of a plurality of first nozzles basedon the average error value of each of the plurality of first componenttype groups 1321, 1322 and 1323 calculated in step 1550. For example,the processor 320 may calculate an average error value of each of theplurality of first component type groups 1321, 1322 and 1323corresponding to each of the plurality of first nozzles as an errorvalue of each of the plurality of first nozzles. The component typegroup corresponding to a specific nozzle among the plurality of firstnozzles may indicate that the components classified as the plurality ofcomponent types included in the component type group are mounted by aspecific nozzle. For example, the error value of a specific nozzle is anerror value calculated by using the error values of the componentsmounted by the specific nozzle, and may be used to check how much errorvalue has occurred for each nozzle and to calculate a fourth error valuedue to a nozzle defect.

For example, referring to FIG. 13B, the error value of the N0 nozzle maybe calculated as 30 μm, which is an average error value of the firstcomponent type group 1321 corresponding to the N0 nozzle, the errorvalue of the N1 nozzle may be calculated as 1 μm, which is an averageerror value of the first component type group 1322 corresponding to theN1 nozzle, and the error value of the N2 nozzle may be calculated as0.33 μm, which is an average error value of the first component typegroup 1323 corresponding to the N2 nozzle.

In step 1620, the processor 320 may calculate a fourth error value ofeach of the plurality of first components due to the defect of a nozzle,based on the error value of each of the plurality of first nozzlescalculated in step 1610. For example, the nozzle defect is a mechanicaldefect of a nozzle itself. By this defect, the nozzle may not operateaccording to the set control parameters.

In an embodiment, the fourth error value of each of the plurality offirst components may be calculated based on the error value of each ofthe plurality of first nozzles. For example, the processor 320 maycalculate the fourth error value of each of the C0 to C8 componentsmounted through the N0 nozzle as 30 μm, which is an error value of theN0 nozzle. In addition, the processor 320 may calculate the fourth errorvalue of each of the C9 to C16 components mounted through the N1 nozzleas 1 μm, which is an error value of the N1 nozzle, and may calculate thefourth error value of each of the C17 to C21 components mounted throughthe N2 nozzle as 0.33 μm, which is an error value of the N2 nozzle. Thefourth error value calculated as described above may be used in aprocess of determining a plurality of second components in which amounting failure has occurred among a plurality of first components andin a process of determining a cause of a mounting failure for each of aplurality of second components.

In step 1630, the processor 320 may divide the first error value of eachof the plurality of first components into a second error value, a thirderror value and a fourth error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents. For example, the processor 320 may divide 55 μm, which is afirst error value of the C0 component, into 0 μm, which is a seconderror value of the C0 component, 25 μm, which is a third error value ofthe C0 component, and 30 μm, which is a fourth error value of the C0component. Similarly, the first error value of each of the remainingcomponents may be divided into a second error value, a third error valueand a fourth error value of each of the remaining components.

FIG. 17 is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining a cause ofa mounting failure for each of a plurality of second components in whicha mounting failure has occurred according to various embodiments of thepresent disclosure.

In step 1710, the processor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 maydetermine whether each of the second error value, the third error valueand the fourth error value of each of the first components divided instep 1630 falls within a preset second range. For example, the secondrange is a range of error values used as a criterion for determining acause of a mounting failure. The second range may be set differently foreach of the second error value, the third error value and the fourtherror value, or may be set identically. In addition, the second rangemay be set to become the same as the aforementioned first range which isthe criterion for determining the mounting failure for the component, ormay be set to become different from the aforementioned first range.Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience of description, it will beassumed that the second range is from −3 μm to 3 μm.

In step 1720, the processor 320 may determine the cause of the mountingfailure for each of the plurality of second components as at least oneof a component mounting position setting error, a mounting conditionsetting error according to a component type and a nozzle defect based onthe determination result of step 1710. For example, the processor 320may determine that the second error value among the second error value,the third error value and the fourth error value of each of the C0 to C2components falls within the second range, and the third error value andthe fourth error value are out of the second range. Accordingly, theprocessor 320 may determine the causes of the mounting failure for eachof the C0 to C2 components as a mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type and a nozzle defect.

In addition, the processor 320 may determine that only the fourth errorvalue among the second error value, the third error value and the fourtherror value of each of the C3 to C5 components is out of the secondrange and further that the cause of the mounting failure for each of theC3 to C5 components is a nozzle defect. Meanwhile, the processor 320 maydetermine that the second error value and the fourth error value of theC6 component are out of the second range and further that the causes ofthe mounting failure for the C6 component are a component mountingposition setting error and a nozzle defect.

In FIGS. 14 to 17, for the sake of convenience, description has beenmade mainly on the case where the cause of the mounting failure for theplurality of second components in which a mounting failure has occurredis determined as at least one of the component mounting position settingerror, the mounting condition setting error according to a componenttype and the nozzle defect. However, the present disclosure is notlimited thereto. For example, the processor 320 may further use an errorvalue of each of a plurality of feeders included in the mounter, anerror value of each of a plurality of spindles included in the mounterand an error value of each of a plurality of reels included in themounter to determine the cause of the mounting failure for the pluralityof second components. In this case, the processor 320 may determine thecause of the mounting failure for the plurality of second components asat least one of a component mounting position setting error, a mountingcondition setting error according to a component type, a feeder defect,a nozzle defect, a spindle defect and a reel defect.

For example, the error value of each of the plurality of feeders may becalculated based on the error value of each of the plurality ofcomponent types in the same manner as the method for calculating theerror value of each of the plurality of nozzles described above. In thiscase, the error value of each of the plurality of nozzles may becalculated based on the error value of each of the plurality of feedersin the same manner as the method for calculating the error value of eachof the plurality of nozzles using the error value of each of theplurality of component types described above. Furthermore, the errorvalue of each of the plurality of spindles may be calculated based onthe error value of each of the plurality of nozzles in the same manneras the method for calculating the error value of each of the pluralityof nozzles using the error value of each of the plurality of componenttypes described above. After calculating the error values of theplurality of feeders, the error values of the plurality of spindles andthe error values of the plurality of reels, the first error value ofeach of the plurality of first components may be divided into second toseventh error values. The plurality of second components in which amounting failure has occurred may be determined using the divided secondto seventh error values, and the cause of the mounting failure for eachof the plurality of second components may be determined. Since themethod for determining the plurality of second components anddetermining the cause of the mounting failure for each of the pluralityof second components is the same as the above-described method, detaileddescription thereof will be omitted.

FIG. 18 is a diagram illustrating a method for controlling a mounteraccording to a cause of a mounting failure according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theprocessor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 may determine a cause of amounting failure for each of a plurality of second components in which amounting failure has occurred, and may control the mounter 140 based onthe determined cause of the mounting failure for each of the pluralityof second components. For example, based on the determined cause of themounting failure for each of the plurality of second components, theprocessor 320 may transmit a control signal to the mounter 140 throughthe communication circuit 330 to change the control parameters of themounter 140 to reduce the mounting failure rate.

In addition, if it is determined based on the cause of the mountingfailure for each of the plurality of second components that thecomponents (e.g., the nozzle, the spindle, the feeder, the reel, etc.)of the mounter 140 need to be replaced, the processor 320 may output amessage indicating the necessity of replacement of the components of themounter 140 through the display 340, or may transmit the message to themounter 140 through the communication circuit 330 so that the message isoutputted through the display of the mounter 140.

In an embodiment, the processor 320 may determine a plurality of fourthcomponents having a mounting failure cause determined as a componentmounting position setting error among the plurality of second componentsin which a mounting failure has occurred. The processor 320 may checkthe offset of each of the plurality of fourth components through theinspection result of the plurality of substrates of the first typereceived from the first substrate inspection apparatus 150. Theprocessor 320 may generate a control signal for changing a controlparameter associated with the mounting position setting of each of theplurality of fourth components such that the offset of each of theplurality of fourth components is less than a predetermined thresholdvalue for the offset. The processor 320 may transmit the generatedcontrol signal to the mounter 140, and the mounter 140 may change thecontrol parameter related to the mounting position setting of each ofthe plurality of fourth components in response to the control signal.

In an embodiment, the processor 320 may determine a plurality of sixthcomponents having a mounting failure cause determined as a mountingcondition setting error according to a component type among theplurality of second components in which a mounting failure has occurred.The processor 320 may check the offsets, the planarity and the like ofeach of the plurality of sixth components through the inspection resultof the plurality of substrates of the first type received from the firstsubstrate inspection apparatus 150. The processor 320 may generate acontrol signal for changing the control parameters (e.g., the head andspindle moving speeds, the corrected distance or coordinate formovement, the component suction pressure of the nozzle, the feedermoving speed, the reel decomposition value, etc.) of the mounter 140 setfor the component types of the plurality of sixth components such thatthe offset, the planarity and the like of each of the plurality of sixthcomponents is less than predetermined threshold values for the offset,the planarity and the like. The processor 320 may transmit the generatedcontrol signal to the mounter 140, and the mounter 140 may change thecontrol parameter set for the component types of the plurality of sixthcomponents in response to the control signal.

In an embodiment, the processor 320 may determine a plurality of seventhcomponents having a mounting failure cause determined as a nozzle defectamong the plurality of second components in which a mounting failure hasoccurred. The processor 320 may confirm the nozzle used to mount theplurality of seventh components. The processor 320 may output a messageindicating the necessity of replacement of the confirmed nozzle throughthe display 340, or may transmit the message to the mounter 140 throughthe communication circuit 330 so that the message is outputted throughthe display of the mounter 140.

In addition, when a plurality of components having a mounting failurecause determined as a feeder defect, a spindle defect or a reel defectexists among the plurality of second components in which a mountingfailure has occurred, the processor 320 may identify the feeder, thespindle or the reel used to mount a plurality of components. Theprocessor 320 may output a message indicating the necessity ofreplacement of the identified feeder, spindle or reel through thedisplay 340, or may transmit the message to the mounter 140 through thecommunication circuit 330 so that the message is outputted through thedisplay of the mounter 140.

FIGS. 19A to 19C are graphs indicating mounting failure rates accordingto various embodiments of the present disclosure.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theprocessor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 may receive an inspectionresult on the mounting failure for each of the plurality of firstcomponents mounted on the plurality of substrates of the first type, andmay calculate a mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstcomponents. The processor 320 may generate a graph having a treestructure as shown in FIG. 19A by using the calculated mounting failurerate of each of the plurality of first components, and may display thegenerated graph on the display 340. The graph shown in FIG. 19A may bedisplayed before the cause of the mounting failure for each of theplurality of second components in which a mounting failure has occurredis determined. The mounting failure rate of each of the plurality offirst components calculated by the processor 320 may be indicated in thegraph. In an embodiment, the graph may indicate the relationship betweenthe plurality of components included in the mounter 140, the componentsmounted on the substrate and the types of components. For example, asshown in FIG. 19A, the graph may indicate the relationship between theplurality of first components, the plurality of first component typesand the plurality of first nozzles as the components of the mounter 140.Description has been made mainly on the case where the graph has a treestructure. However, this is merely for the purpose of explanation. Thepresent disclosure is not limited thereto. Various types of graphs maybe used to indicate the relationship between the plurality of componentsincluded in the mounter, the components mounted on the substrate and thetypes of components.

The processor 320 may calculate a mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of first components, a mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of first component types and a mounting failure rate of eachof the plurality of first nozzles by using the calculated mountingfailure rate of each of the plurality of first components. The processor320 may determine a mounting failure cause using the calculated result,and then may adjust the mounting failure rate of each of the pluralityof first components, the mounting failure rate of each of the pluralityof first component types and the mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of first nozzles. As shown in FIG. 19B, the processor 320 mayindicate the adjusted mounting failure rate of each of the plurality offirst components, the adjusted mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of first component types and the adjusted mounting failurerate of each of the plurality of first nozzles through the graph.

Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 19C, the processor 320 may adjust thenodes included in the graph to various graphic forms (e.g., a bubbleform) according to the adjusted mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of first components, the adjusted mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first component types and the adjusted mountingfailure rate of each of the plurality of first nozzles, and may indicatethe adjusted nodes so that the user can more clearly recognize the causeof the mounting failure. For example, the processor 320 may indicate aC6 component node having a mounting failure rate adjusted to 15%, a P0component type node having a mounting failure rate adjusted to 25%, anda N0 nozzle node having a mounting failure rate adjusted to 30%, in alarger size than other nodes having mounting failure rates adjusted to0%. In addition, the processor 320 may indicate the C6 component node,the P0 component type node and the N0 nozzle node in different sizesaccording to each adjusted mounting failure rate. Moreover, theprocessor 320 may generate and display a chart or table indicating amounting failure rate ranking in which the mounting failure rates of themounter components, the components and the component types are alignedaccording to the magnitude of the mounting failure rates.

In the above description, the size of the node is differently indicatedaccording to the adjusted failure rate. However, this is merely for thepurpose of description. The present disclosure is not limited thereto.It may be possible to use various methods such as changing the color andshape of a node, so that the user may more clearly recognize a cause ofa mounting failure.

FIGS. 20A to 20C are graphs indicating error values according to variousembodiments of the present disclosure.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theprocessor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 may receive a first errorvalue of each of a plurality of first components mounted on a pluralityof substrates of the first type. The processor 320 may generate a graphhaving a tree structure as illustrated in FIG. 20A by using thecalculated first error value of the plurality of first components, andmay display the generated graph on the display 340. The graph shown inFIG. 20A may be displayed before the cause of the mounting failure foreach of the plurality of second components in which a mounting failurehas occurred is determined, and the first error value of each of theplurality of first components calculated by the processor 320 may beindicated in the graph. In an embodiment, the graph may indicate therelationship between the plurality of components included in the mounter140, the components mounted on the substrate, and the types ofcomponents. For example, as shown in FIG. 19A, the graph may indicatethe relationship between the plurality of first components, theplurality of first component types and the plurality of first nozzles asthe components of the mounter 140. Description has been made mainly onthe case where the graph has a tree structure. However, this is merelyfor the purpose of explanation. The present disclosure is not limitedthereto. Various types of graphs may be used to indicate therelationship between the plurality of components included in themounter, the components mounted on the substrate and the types ofcomponents.

The processor 320 may divide the calculated first error value of each ofthe plurality of first components into a second error value due to acomponent mounting position setting error, a third error value due to amounting condition setting error according to a component type, and afourth error value due to a nozzle defect. The processor 320 maydetermine a cause of a mounting failure using the subdivision result,and then may display the second error value, the third error value andthe fourth error value through a graph as shown in FIG. 20B.

In addition, as shown in FIG. 20C, the processor 320 may adjust the sizeof nodes included in the graph having a tree structure according to thesecond error value, the third error value and the fourth error value,and may display the nodes so that the user may more clearly recognizethe cause of the mounting failure. For example, the processor 320 mayobtain absolute values of the second error value, the third error valueand the fourth error value, and may adjust the size of each node suchthat the absolute value becomes a radius. Accordingly, the user may moreclearly recognize the cause of the mounting failure. In the abovedescription, the size of the node is differently indicated according tothe absolute value of the error value. However, this is merely for thepurpose of description. The present disclosure is not limited thereto.It may be possible to use various methods such as changing the color andshape of a node, so that the user may more clearly recognize a cause ofa mounting failure.

FIG. 21 illustrates a screen displaying the content of error valueanalysis according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theprocessor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 may display, on thedisplay 340, a screen of the content of error value analysis including agraph 2110 of a tree structure indicating the error values describedwith reference to FIGS. 20A through 20C, node information 2120 selectedby the user in the graph 2110, error value information 2130corresponding to the selected node, an error value trend chart 2140corresponding to the selected node and an error value graph 2150corresponding to the selected node.

In an embodiment, when the user selects a P0 node corresponding to theP0 component type included in the graph 2110, the processor 320 maydisplay information about the P0 node (e.g., identification informationfor identifying the P0 component type) as the selected node information2120. In FIG. 21, only the identification information for identifyingthe P0 component type is displayed as the selected node information2120. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Variousinformation related to the P0 component type may be displayed as theselected node information 2120.

In addition, the processor 320 may display the error value information2130 corresponding to the P0 node. In the error value information 2130,an error value 2131 of the N0 node, which is an upper node of the P0node, and an error value 2130 of the P0 node may be divisionallydisplayed. However, this is merely for the purpose of description. Thepresent disclosure is not limited thereto. Error values of the C0 node,the C1 node and the C2 node, which are lower nodes of the P0 node, maybe further displayed in the error value information 2130.

As described above, the first error value of each of the plurality offirst components may be generated by using the plurality of measurementvalues of the plurality of first components measured in the process ofinspecting the plurality of substrates of the first type. The firsterror value of each of the plurality of first components may begenerated based on one of an average value, a median value, a modevalue, a minimum value, a maximum value and a standard deviation of eachof the plurality of first error values. Since the second error value,the third error value and the fourth error value are generated bydividing the first error value, the processor 320 may divide each of theplurality of first error values to calculate a plurality of second errorvalues, a plurality of third error values, a plurality of fourth errorvalues, and an average value, a median value, a mode value, a minimumvalue, a maximum value and a standard deviation of each of the seconderror value, the third error value and the fourth error value.

The processor 320 may generate and display an error value trend chart2140 of the P0 node as the selected node based on the calculatedplurality of second error values, the calculated plurality of thirderror values and the calculated plurality of fourth error values. Inaddition, the processor 320 may generate and display the error valuegraph 2150 using an average value, a median value, a mode value, aminimum value, a maximum value and a standard deviation of the errorvalue of the P0 node as the selected node. This enables the user toeasily grasp the error value characteristic of the P0 node as theselected node.

FIG. 22 illustrates a screen displaying the content of error valueanalysis according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theprocessor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 may display, on thedisplay 340, a screen of the content of error value analysis including agraph 2210 of a tree structure indicating the error values describedwith reference to FIGS. 20A through 20C, an error value graph 2220corresponding to the node selected by the user and a component image2230 related to the node selected by the user.

In an embodiment, when the user selects the N0 node corresponding to theN0 nozzle included in the graph 2210, as described with reference toFIG. 21, the processor 320 may generate and display an error value graph2220 using an average value, a median value, a mode value, a minimumvalue, a maximum value and a standard deviation of the error value ofthe N0 node as the selected node. This enables the user to easily graspthe error value characteristic of the N0 node as the selected node.

In addition, the processor 320 may display a component image 2230related to the N0 node. For example, the component image related to theN0 node may indicate images of all the components mounted by the N0nozzle. In this case, the image of the component in which a mountingfailure has occurred among all the components mounted by the N0 nozzlemay be displayed with a different color, size or the like so as to bedistinguished from the image of the component in which a mountingfailure has not occurred. As another example, the image of the componentrelated to the N0 node may include only the image of the component inwhich a mounting failure has occurred among all the components mountedby the N0 nozzle. This enables the user to easily grasp the image of thecomponent in which a mounting failure has occurred among the componentsmounted by the N0 nozzle.

FIG. 23 illustrates a screen displaying a solder paste image, acomponent image after a mounting process and a component image after areflow process according to various embodiments of the presentdisclosure.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theprocessor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 may display, on thedisplay 340, an image of a solder paste printed on a substrate, acomponent image after a mounting process and a component image after areflow process, by using the inspection result received from the SPIapparatus 130, the first substrate inspection apparatus 150 and thesecond substrate inspection apparatus 170. In addition, the processor320 may also display, on the display 340, the inspection resultsreceived from the SPI apparatus 130, the first substrate inspectionapparatus 150 and the second substrate inspection apparatus 170. Thisenables the user to easily grasp the process in which the mountingfailure has occurred.

FIG. 24 is a graph representing mounting failure rates according tovarious embodiments of the present disclosure.

According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, theprocessor 320 of the electronic apparatus 110 may determine a cause of amounting failure for each of a plurality of second components in which amounting failure has occurred, and then may adjust the mounting failurerate of each of the plurality of first components, the mounting failurerate of each of the plurality of first component types and the mountingfailure rate of each of the plurality of first nozzles. Based on theadjusted mounting failure rate, the processor 320 may generate a graphin which the mounting failure rates are arranged according to the sizethereof, and may display the graph as shown in FIG. 24. This enables theuser to easily check which part has contributed most to the mountingfailure.

While the foregoing methods have been described with respect toparticular embodiments, these methods may also be implemented ascomputer-readable codes on a computer-readable recording medium. Thecomputer-readable recoding medium includes any kind of data storagedevices that can be read by a computer system. Examples of thecomputer-readable recording medium includes ROM, RAM, CD-ROM, magnetictape, floppy disk, optical data storage device and the like. Also, thecomputer-readable recoding medium can be distributed on computer systemswhich are connected through a network so that the computer-readablecodes can be stored and executed in a distributed manner. Further, thefunctional programs, codes and code segments for implementing theforegoing embodiments can easily be inferred by programmers in the artto which the present disclosure pertains.

Although the technical spirit of the present disclosure has beendescribed by the examples described in some embodiments and illustratedin the accompanying drawings, it should be noted that varioussubstitutions, modifications, and changes can be made without departingfrom the scope of the present disclosure which can be understood bythose skilled in the art to which the present disclosure pertains. Inaddition, it should be noted that such substitutions, modifications andchanges are intended to fall within the scope of the appended claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for determining a cause of a mountingfailure for a component mounted on a substrate, which is performed by anelectronic apparatus, comprising: receiving an inspection result of amounting failure for each of a plurality of first components determinedby inspecting a plurality of substrates of a first type on which theplurality of first components are mounted, a mounting position of eachof the plurality of first components on the substrate of the first typebeing different to each other; calculating a mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first components using the inspection result;determining a plurality of second components in which a mounting failurehas occurred among the plurality of first components based on themounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first components; anddetermining a cause of the mounting failure for each of the plurality ofsecond components as at least one of a component mounting positionsetting error, a mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type and a defect of a nozzle included in a mounter, based onthe mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first components.2. The method of claim 1, wherein the calculating the mounting failurerate of each of the plurality of first components comprises: classifyingthe plurality of substrates of the first type into at least onesubstrate of the first type in which the mounting failure for each ofthe plurality of first components has not occurred and at least onesubstrate of the first type in which a mounting failure for each of theplurality of first components has occurred by using the inspectionresult; and calculating the mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of first components by using the number of the at least onesubstrate of the first type in which the mounting failure for each ofthe plurality of first components has not occurred and the number of theat least one substrate of the first type in which the mounting failurefor each of the plurality of first components has occurred.
 3. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the determining the plurality of secondcomponents in which the mounting failure has occurred among theplurality of first components comprises: determining a plurality ofcomponents having a mounting failure rate equal to or greater than apredetermined first threshold value among the mounting failure rates ofthe plurality of first components; and determining the determinedplurality of components as the plurality of second components.
 4. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the determining the cause of the mountingfailure for each of the plurality of second components comprises:classifying the plurality of first components into a plurality of firstcomponent groups according to a plurality of first component types, eachof the plurality of first components being classified as one of theplurality of first component types; determining a plurality of secondcomponent groups including at least one of the plurality of secondcomponents among the plurality of first component groups; comparingmounting failure rates of a plurality of third components included ineach of the plurality of second component groups with each other, basedon the mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstcomponents; and determining a cause of a mounting failure for aplurality of fourth components selected from among the plurality ofsecond components based on the comparison result as the componentmounting position setting error.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein eachof the plurality of fourth components is, in one of the plurality ofsecond component groups, a component having a mounting failure ratedetermined as an outlier based on the comparison result.
 6. The methodof claim 4, wherein the determining the cause of the mounting failurefor each of the plurality of second components further comprises:calculating a mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstcomponent types based on a mounting failure rate of each of a pluralityof fifth components except for the plurality of fourth components, amongthe plurality of first components; classifying the plurality of firstcomponent types into a plurality of first component type groupsaccording to a plurality of first nozzles used to mount the plurality offirst components; comparing the mounting failure rates of the pluralityof first component types included in each of the plurality of firstcomponent type groups; and determining a cause of a mounting failure fora plurality of sixth components, classified as a plurality of secondcomponent types selected based on the comparison result, as the mountingcondition setting error according to a component type.
 7. The method ofclaim 6, wherein each of the plurality of second component types is, inone of the plurality of first component type groups, a component typehaving a mounting failure rate determined as an outlier based on thecomparison result.
 8. The method of claim 6, wherein the determining thecause of the mounting failure for each of the plurality of secondcomponents further comprises: calculating a mounting failure rate ofeach of the plurality of first nozzles, based on a mounting failure rateof each of a plurality of third component types except for the pluralityof second component types, among the plurality of first component types;comparing the mounting failure rates of the plurality of first nozzles;and determining, among the plurality of second components, a cause of amounting failure for a plurality of seventh components, mounted by usingat least one second nozzle selected based on the comparison result, asthe defect of the nozzle.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the at leastone second nozzle is, among the plurality of first nozzles, a nozzlehaving a mounting failure rate determined as an outlier based on thecomparison result.
 10. The method of claim 8, further comprising:adjusting amounting failure rate of at least one third nozzle except forthe at least one second nozzle among the plurality of first nozzles;adjusting amounting failure rate of at least one component type amongthe plurality of first component types based on at least one of themounting failure rate of the at least one second nozzle and the adjustedmounting failure rate of the at least one third nozzle; adjustingamounting failure rate of at least one of the plurality of firstcomponents based on at least one of a mounting failure rate of the atleast one second nozzle, a mounting failure rate of the adjusted atleast one third nozzle and a mounting failure rate of the adjusted atleast one component type; and calculating a contribution degree of thecomponent mounting position setting error, the mounting conditionsetting error according to a component type and the defect of the nozzleincluded in the mounter to the occurrence of the mounting failure foreach of the plurality of second components based on the mounting failurerate adjustment result.
 11. The method of claim 10, further comprising:generating and displaying a graph indicating a relationship between theplurality of first components, the plurality of first component typesand the plurality of first nozzles, wherein the adjusted mountingfailure rate of each of the plurality of first components, the adjustedmounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first component typesand the adjusted mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstnozzles are indicated in the graph.
 12. The method of claim 10, furthercomprising: generating and displaying a graph in which the adjustedmounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first components, theadjusted mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of firstcomponent types and the adjusted mounting failure rate of each of theplurality of first nozzles are arranged according to the magnitude ofthe adjusted mounting failure rates.
 13. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising: transmitting a control signal for changing a controlparameter of a mounter used to mount the plurality of first componentson the substrates of the first type or a message indicating thenecessity of replacement of a component included in the mounter, to themounter based on the cause of the mounting failure for each of theplurality of second components.
 14. An electronic apparatus fordetermining a cause of a mounting failure for each of a plurality ofcomponents mounted on a substrate, comprising: one or more memories; anda processor electrically connected to the one or more memories, whereinthe one or more memories are configured to store instructions for, whenexecuted, enabling the processor to: receive an inspection result of amounting failure for each of a plurality of first components determinedby inspecting a plurality of substrates of a first type on which theplurality of first components are mounted, a mounting position of eachof the plurality of first components on the substrate of the first typebeing different to each other; calculate a mounting failure rate of eachof the plurality of first components using the inspection result;determine a plurality of second components in which a mounting failurehas occurred among the plurality of first components based on themounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first components; anddetermine a cause of the mounting failure for each of the plurality ofsecond components as at least one of a component mounting positionsetting error, a mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type and a defect of a nozzle included in a mounter, based onthe mounting failure rate of each of the plurality of first components.15. A method for determining a cause of a mounting failure for each of aplurality of components mounted on a substrate, which is performed by asubstrate inspection device, comprising: receiving a first error valueof each of a plurality of first components determined by inspecting aplurality of substrates of a first type on which the plurality of firstcomponents are mounted, a mounting position of each of the plurality offirst components on the substrate of the first type being different toeach other; dividing the first error value of each of the plurality offirst components into a second error value due to a component mountingposition setting error, a third error value due to a mounting conditionsetting error according to a component type and a fourth error value dueto a defect of a nozzle included in a mounter; determining a pluralityof second components in which a mounting failure has occurred among theplurality of first components based on the second error value, the thirderror value and the fourth error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents; and determining a cause of the mounting failure for each ofthe plurality of second components as at least one of the componentmounting position setting error, the mounting condition setting erroraccording to a component type and the defect of the nozzle included inthe mounter, based on the second error value, the third error value andthe fourth error value of each of the plurality of second components.16. The method of claim 15, wherein the dividing the first error valueof each of the plurality of first components comprises: classifying theplurality of first components into a plurality of first component groupsaccording to a plurality of first component types, each of the pluralityof first components being classified as one of the plurality of firstcomponent types; comparing first error values of a plurality of thirdcomponents included in each of the plurality of first component groups,based on the first error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents; selecting a plurality of fourth components from among theplurality of first components based on the comparison result;calculating an average error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponent groups, based on first error values of a plurality of fifthcomponents except for the plurality of fourth components, among theplurality of first components; and calculating the second error value ofeach of the plurality of first components due to the component mountingposition setting error, based on the first error value of each of theplurality of first components and the average error value of each of theplurality of first component groups.
 17. The method of claim 16, whereinthe dividing the first error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents further comprises: calculating an error value of each of theplurality of first component types based on the average error value ofeach of the plurality of first component groups; classifying theplurality of first component types into a plurality of first componenttype groups according to a plurality of first nozzles used to mount theplurality of first components; comparing error values of a plurality ofsecond component types included in each of the plurality of firstcomponent type groups, based on the error value of each of the pluralityof first component types; selecting a plurality of third component typesfrom among the plurality of first component types based on thecomparison result; calculating an average error value of each of theplurality of first component type groups, based on error values of aplurality of fourth component types except for the plurality of thirdcomponent types, among the plurality of first component types; andcalculating the third error value of each of the plurality of firstcomponents due to the mounting condition setting error according to acomponent type, based on the error value of each of the plurality offirst component types and the average error value of each of theplurality of first component type groups.
 18. The method of claim 17,wherein the dividing the first error value of each of the plurality offirst components further comprises: calculating an error value of eachof the plurality of first nozzles based on the average error value ofeach of the plurality of first component type groups; calculating thefourth error value of each of the plurality of first components due tothe defect of the nozzle, based on the error value of each of theplurality of first nozzles; and dividing the first error value of eachof the plurality of first components into the second error value, thethird error value and the fourth error value of each of the plurality offirst components.
 19. The method of claim 15, wherein the determiningthe plurality of second components in which the mounting failure hasoccurred among the plurality of first components comprises: determininga plurality of components in which at least one of the second errorvalue, the third error value and the fourth error value of each of theplurality of first components is out of a predetermined first range; anddetermining the determined plurality of components as the plurality ofsecond components.
 20. The method of claim 15, wherein the determiningthe cause of the mounting failure for each of the plurality of secondcomponents comprises: determining whether each of the second errorvalue, the third error value and the fourth error value of each of theplurality of second components falls within a predetermined secondrange; and determining the cause of the mounting failure for each of theplurality of second components as at least one of the component mountingposition setting error, the mounting condition setting error accordingto a component type and the detect of the nozzle based on thedetermination result.